Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Today’s Times main leader won’t go down well at Number 10 – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,183

    Jonathan said:

    @RochdalePioneers what you might be overlooking is that Boris has a big constituency that like it when he sends up the office of PM and the political establishment that goes along with it.

    Whilst that and the affectation make him doubly unfit for office, the act will still get support. Trump still gets support after an insurrection and advocating injecting bleach, Boris will be supported after PigGate and other nonsense.

    I agree that he *had* that big constituency. Not sure the same is true now. Not in sufficient numbers to keep them in office.
    I fear there is a lot of wishful thinking about. It is clear that the media narrative has moved against Johnson, but the effect on the polls is relatively modest, and there is every indication that it will be temporary.

    I still struggle to understand the mindset of Johnson supporters, when the act has never worked on me, but I think there might be an air of, "Whoever we vote for we'll still have a government running things, taxing, lying and messing things up, but at least with Boris we have a government running things, taxing, lying, messing things up *and* we'll get to have a laugh once in a while."

    Cynicism works for Johnson. The Opposition will have to convince people to believe that they can be better. That's going to be incredibly difficult.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    .

    Rishi's contribution was shuffling the pages before the speech went into the red box.... ;)
    and making sure HS2 reached his constituency......
    Um, HS2 never gets to his constituency - and the locals won't like the impact of rebuilding the station to cope with the extra lines now required.

    As I mentioned on Sunday the ECML improvements identify a 20 minute speed increase from Darlington / Northallerton to London.

    Back in 2017 Network rail identified that when the track is increased to 140 mph, the total time saved will be 5 minutes (that's why spending £xbn doing so was instantly rejected then)
    Although to be fair, increasing linespeed to 140MPH isn't the best way of getting time savings. That's by reducing conflicts - the reason they've spent so much money building the blooming marvellous Werrington flyunder. From memory, the time savings by one such project (the Hitchin flyover further south of the ECML) were considerable, and far greater than just increasing the linespeed.

    But the best way of reducing conflicts would be... a new high-speed route ...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    edited November 2021

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    Nationality by ultimate ownership vs nationality by cultural origin vs nationality by main production location is one of those perennial arguments that shows how silly a lot of economic nationalism is.

    Every time someone said "yeah but Jaguar Land-Rover is actually Indian" I used to be able to remind them that Fiat is British, on the basis Fiat-Chrysler was UK-parented (actually parented by a Dutch established, UK resident company). Before the Stellantis merger of course. Likewise by the ownership principle companies like the Kazakh mining group ENRC would be "British", and countless other examples.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    Strangely, the Conservative MP for Peppa Pig World, Dr Julian Lewis, voted AGAINST Boris Johnson’s proposals for paying for social care https://twitter.com/peppapig/status/1447545525939707906/photo/1
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    Brains Trust.

    I'm looking for a selection of international-perspective news TV stations in English.

    Any good suggestions?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    eek said:

    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    2019: Boris Johnson promises that no one will have to sell their home to pay for social care

    2021: Boris Johnson announces plans that will force working families to sell their home to pay for care.

    Another unfair proposal and another broken promise from the Conservatives.
    https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1462858424572596229/photo/1
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    It was never, apparently, offered to the BBC, because the Corporation messed about with a previous offering from the owners and originators, the Elf Factory, so the team took umbrage. See 'How Peppa Pig brought home the bacon' in the FT from 30/7/2010.
    Yet another 'error' from Johnson, but one calculated to bring discredit on the BBC.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    edited November 2021

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    .

    Rishi's contribution was shuffling the pages before the speech went into the red box.... ;)
    and making sure HS2 reached his constituency......
    Um, HS2 never gets to his constituency - and the locals won't like the impact of rebuilding the station to cope with the extra lines now required.

    As I mentioned on Sunday the ECML improvements identify a 20 minute speed increase from Darlington / Northallerton to London.

    Back in 2017 Network rail identified that when the track is increased to 140 mph, the total time saved will be 5 minutes (that's why spending £xbn doing so was instantly rejected then)
    Although to be fair, increasing linespeed to 140MPH isn't the best way of getting time savings. That's by reducing conflicts - the reason they've spent so much money building the blooming marvellous Werrington flyunder. From memory, the time savings by one such project (the Hitchin flyover further south of the ECML) were considerable, and far greater than just increasing the linespeed.

    But the best way of reducing conflicts would be... a new high-speed route ...
    Agreed, but the real anger in the north is far more over the cancellation of the new transPennine line than that of the section of HS2 from the Midlands to Leeds.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

    Indeed, up until a few weeks ago, I was one of the most optimistic posters on here. But I'm slowly becoming more concerned. Maybe I'm just overreacting to yesterday's numbers. I hope so.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    Christmas party season is conveniently concentrated in people of working age - particularly young working age - who are less likely to get very ill. Christmas parties are also generally in early December, so most might have got it and recovered before their parents arrive for Christmas.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    edited November 2021
    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    Nationality by ultimate ownership vs nationality by cultural origin vs nationality by main production location is one of those perennial arguments that shows how silly a lot of economic nationalism is.

    Every time someone said "yeah but Jaguar Land-Rover is actually Indian" I used to be able to remind them that Fiat is British, on the basis Fiat-Chrysler was UK-parented (actually parented by a Dutch established, UK resident company). Before the Stellantis merger of course. Likewise by the ownership principle companies like the Kazakh mining group ENRC would be "British", and countless other examples.
    Only two things count - where stuff is built, and where the money goes.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    But it is pretty much what the Tory party is for, preserving the wealth of the rich core supporters, according to one poster here.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
  • eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Were I still in NE England ramping for Labour, I'd been looking at ramming home some of the messages that are already in circulation. "Make Brexit Work" and "Deliver the Promises".

    I witnessed the hollowing out of the Labour vote, spent a couple of years trying to get the local party grandees to wake up and engage the threat then gave up. I then witnessed with great amusement as places with constant poor turnout voted in very large numbers twice - in 2016 and in 2019.

    The unifying thing that cut through was that Labour had betrayed them by never delivering, and that Brexit would let their communities prosper like people down south. Hence why "levelling up" has been such a Tory mantra - they could see the disparity. The betrayal of that promise can sink the Tories and work for Labour if - and its a big IF - the Tories keep on this path and Labour prey on it.

    What the Labour types won't like is that as in the 80s the Overton Window has shifted. What the Tories promised in 2019 was popular, they are already betraying that promise (remember how so many described how they had only lent their vote?). If Labour pledged to actual deliver what the Tories offered and have already scrapped, they can win enough of these seats back.

    Enough of these seats. Still would leave them short without Scotland.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Jonathan said:

    @RochdalePioneers what you might be overlooking is that Boris has a big constituency that like it when he sends up the office of PM and the political establishment that goes along with it.

    Whilst that and the affectation make him doubly unfit for office, the act will still get support. Trump still gets support after an insurrection and advocating injecting bleach, Boris will be supported after PigGate and other nonsense.

    I agree that he *had* that big constituency. Not sure the same is true now. Not in sufficient numbers to keep them in office.
    I fear there is a lot of wishful thinking about. It is clear that the media narrative has moved against Johnson, but the effect on the polls is relatively modest, and there is every indication that it will be temporary.

    I still struggle to understand the mindset of Johnson supporters, when the act has never worked on me, but I think there might be an air of, "Whoever we vote for we'll still have a government running things, taxing, lying and messing things up, but at least with Boris we have a government running things, taxing, lying, messing things up *and* we'll get to have a laugh once in a while."

    Cynicism works for Johnson. The Opposition will have to convince people to believe that they can be better. That's going to be incredibly difficult.
    Joke's not funny any more.
  • Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    Is not a line that will play well on red wall doorsteps...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    .
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    This government has written you off probably covers it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    Is not a line that will play well on red wall doorsteps...
    It’s still an interesting question. The absence of a “status quo” bar is suspicious.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

    Indeed, up until a few weeks ago, I was one of the most optimistic posters on here. But I'm slowly becoming more concerned. Maybe I'm just overreacting to yesterday's numbers. I hope so.
    I think its pretty clear where the numbers are increasing - yet again its the unvaccinated kids. It looks like we need to adjust for the the sharp fall for half term and the smaller increases as the kids have gone back to see the truer picture. The beauty of averages.

    I understand your increased concern. I think we all want the case numbers to fall and fall in a big way, but I'm not sure thats going to happen while we keep doing random testing for work and school. Far better now to start testing just when needed - i.e. hospital admission. For the rest - if you are unwell, stay home until better.

    Its time to challenge the 'presenteeism' attitudes of the nation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited November 2021
    Very surprised that @rcs1000 was posting during the interview on the Today prog (08:23) with some geezers that had something to do with R*d**h**d's album art.

    While I found it less than enlightening I'm sure it was interesting to fans.
  • Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    On the benefits side:

    For the fairly rich a lot lot better.
    For the median a bit better.
    For the poor no difference.

    On the costs side:

    For the rich not much difference.
    For the median worse.
    For the poor worse.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Nigelb said:

    .

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    This government has written you off probably covers it.
    Problem with that was back in 2013-19 austerity destroyed the local councils. Now the Tory Government were to blame but it was the Labour councils that were actually blamed and suffered. That was one reason why Boris won 2019 so well in the Red Wall seats.
  • TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    Nationality by ultimate ownership vs nationality by cultural origin vs nationality by main production location is one of those perennial arguments that shows how silly a lot of economic nationalism is.

    Every time someone said "yeah but Jaguar Land-Rover is actually Indian" I used to be able to remind them that Fiat is British, on the basis Fiat-Chrysler was UK-parented (actually parented by a Dutch established, UK resident company). Before the Stellantis merger of course. Likewise by the ownership principle companies like the Kazakh mining group ENRC would be "British", and countless other examples.
    It matters because follow the money. From that point of view, and if deficits matter, British investments overseas are good because profits come here; foreign ownership of British firms is bad because profits flow abroad to their owners. Of course, there are still benefits from jobs and production being based here, and genuine overseas investment (as opposed to simply buying up success stories) is to be welcomed even if we wonder where are the British angel investors and venture capitalists.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

    Indeed, up until a few weeks ago, I was one of the most optimistic posters on here. But I'm slowly becoming more concerned. Maybe I'm just overreacting to yesterday's numbers. I hope so.
    I think its pretty clear where the numbers are increasing - yet again its the unvaccinated kids. It looks like we need to adjust for the the sharp fall for half term and the smaller increases as the kids have gone back to see the truer picture. The beauty of averages.

    I understand your increased concern. I think we all want the case numbers to fall and fall in a big way, but I'm not sure thats going to happen while we keep doing random testing for work and school. Far better now to start testing just when needed - i.e. hospital admission. For the rest - if you are unwell, stay home until better.

    Its time to challenge the 'presenteeism' attitudes of the nation.
    Absolutely. For the vaxxed and the overwhelming majority of children Covid is now like the flu, better or worse from person to person. It is certainly not something that needs a separate "Covid Update" on the BBC News website.

    The key, of course, is hospitalisations and deaths and as long as these are manageable Covid should stay out of the news in general.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    TOPPING said:

    Very surprised that @rcs1000 was posting during the interview on the Today prog (08:23) with some geezers that had something to do with R*d**h**d's album art.

    While I found it less than enlightening I'm sure it was interesting to fans.

    Did someone say R*d**h**d album art?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    Things against Hunt:

    1. The key one is that the Parliamentary constituency base - which he needs to get into the two - has moved against him in terms of composition. 2019 was his best chance;

    2: not a natural Red Wall leader - link that to 1.

    3: did Health. No great achievements to launch off
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Were I still in NE England ramping for Labour, I'd been looking at ramming home some of the messages that are already in circulation. "Make Brexit Work" and "Deliver the Promises".

    I witnessed the hollowing out of the Labour vote, spent a couple of years trying to get the local party grandees to wake up and engage the threat then gave up. I then witnessed with great amusement as places with constant poor turnout voted in very large numbers twice - in 2016 and in 2019.

    The unifying thing that cut through was that Labour had betrayed them by never delivering, and that Brexit would let their communities prosper like people down south. Hence why "levelling up" has been such a Tory mantra - they could see the disparity. The betrayal of that promise can sink the Tories and work for Labour if - and its a big IF - the Tories keep on this path and Labour prey on it.

    What the Labour types won't like is that as in the 80s the Overton Window has shifted. What the Tories promised in 2019 was popular, they are already betraying that promise (remember how so many described how they had only lent their vote?). If Labour pledged to actual deliver what the Tories offered and have already scrapped, they can win enough of these seats back.

    Enough of these seats. Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    Scotland is a different issue which SKS will also need a plan to resolve, they can't win Scotland which means they need a plan (sooner rather than later) to ensure Scotland isn't used against them come the election.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:




    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.

    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    There are several alternative impressions here:

    1. If you need long-term care, my family may lose my house. The Government is making that less likely. Hooray!
    2. Ditto, but add, "at enormous expense to you now as a working taxpayer". Hmm!
    3. Ditto, but add, "and they're mainly looking after people with expensive houses. Your family will still need to find 80 grand." Eek!

    I don't have a dog in this fight. I rent my home and I don't have any kids. If my wife dies first, I don't really care what happens when I die, though a charity will benefit.

    But I think that
    (a) lots of people haven't really focused on the fact that the family may lose their house. So even (1) feels like bad news.
    (b) those who do think about it vaguely thought the Government was promising to stop it. So that feels like a broken promise.
    (c) those who follow it in detail are aware of the taxpayer cost, like DavidL. They are not sure it's a good idea at all to subsidise estates at the expense of people paying income tax.
    (d) point 3 is cutting through, and is so ridiculously biased to the rich that it sounds like a Socialist Workers' Party pamphlet about the evil Tories.
    (e) Boris Johnson does not really exude an air of competence at present. Consequently, even the "Hooray!" camp is not really sure it'll work out.


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    Christmas party season is conveniently concentrated in people of working age - particularly young working age - who are less likely to get very ill. Christmas parties are also generally in early December, so most might have got it and recovered before their parents arrive for Christmas.
    My mother is 80. Her calendar is chocka with Xmas do's.
    She may be unrepresentative.
  • RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    Is not a line that will play well on red wall doorsteps...
    It’s still an interesting question. The absence of a “status quo” bar is suspicious.
    It really isn't. At the moment we have a system that is unfair on everyone. "You won't lose your house" promises Peppa. And produces a system where only poor northerners lose their house.

    It doesn't matter that the status quo is bad. The proposal makes poor people in the north who need levelling up against the riches of the south feel like they are losing out to southerners again.

    With the policy being so egregiously one-sided to HYUFD's core southern vote, national polls are not going to capture northern anger. It was already there and this is going drive them spare, believe me.
  • eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    He seems resigned to the fact the party has chosen a different direction to me.
  • TOPPING said:

    Very surprised that @rcs1000 was posting during the interview on the Today prog (08:23) with some geezers that had something to do with R*d**h**d's album art.

    While I found it less than enlightening I'm sure it was interesting to fans.

    I don't understand why ponces like R****head get so much attention and prog/pop genius creatives like Steven Wilson do not.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    Is not a line that will play well on red wall doorsteps...
    It’s still an interesting question. The absence of a “status quo” bar is suspicious.
    It really isn't. At the moment we have a system that is unfair on everyone. "You won't lose your house" promises Peppa. And produces a system where only poor northerners lose their house.

    It doesn't matter that the status quo is bad. The proposal makes poor people in the north who need levelling up against the riches of the south feel like they are losing out to southerners again.

    With the policy being so egregiously one-sided to HYUFD's core southern vote, national polls are not going to capture northern anger. It was already there and this is going drive them spare, believe me.
    For those that are interested in the question, here's the source of the BBC graphic, which has a nice plot showing the current situation and the proposal.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/last-minute-changes-to-social-care-reforms-are-a-step-in-the-wrong-direction
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    edited November 2021
    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    Christmas party season is conveniently concentrated in people of working age - particularly young working age - who are less likely to get very ill. Christmas parties are also generally in early December, so most might have got it and recovered before their parents arrive for Christmas.
    My mother is 80. Her calendar is chocka with Xmas do's.
    She may be unrepresentative.
    I wouldn't say our calendar is 'chocka' but there's quite a lot scheduled!
    Including visits from 'children' and grandchildren. Who are at work, uni, or school.

    u3a Wine Appreciation meeting tomorrow, too.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    Things against Hunt:

    1. The key one is that the Parliamentary constituency base - which he needs to get into the two - has moved against him in terms of composition. 2019 was his best chance;

    2: not a natural Red Wall leader - link that to 1.

    3: did Health. No great achievements to launch off
    4. Has "Rat Eyes" according to my late mother.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,874
    edited November 2021
    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    Christmas party season is conveniently concentrated in people of working age - particularly young working age - who are less likely to get very ill. Christmas parties are also generally in early December, so most might have got it and recovered before their parents arrive for Christmas.
    My mother is 80. Her calendar is chocka with Xmas do's.
    She may be unrepresentative.
    I've got three of them on consecutive days in different towns next weekend. A one-man super-spreader event.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:




    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.

    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    There are several alternative impressions here:

    1. If you need long-term care, my family may lose my house. The Government is making that less likely. Hooray!
    2. Ditto, but add, "at enormous expense to you now as a working taxpayer". Hmm!
    3. Ditto, but add, "and they're mainly looking after people with expensive houses. Your family will still need to find 80 grand." Eek!

    I don't have a dog in this fight. I rent my home and I don't have any kids. If my wife dies first, I don't really care what happens when I die, though a charity will benefit.

    But I think that
    (a) lots of people haven't really focused on the fact that the family may lose their house. So even (1) feels like bad news.
    (b) those who do think about it vaguely thought the Government was promising to stop it. So that feels like a broken promise.
    (c) those who follow it in detail are aware of the taxpayer cost, like DavidL. They are not sure it's a good idea at all to subsidise estates at the expense of people paying income tax.
    (d) point 3 is cutting through, and is so ridiculously biased to the rich that it sounds like a Socialist Workers' Party pamphlet about the evil Tories.
    (e) Boris Johnson does not really exude an air of competence at present. Consequently, even the "Hooray!" camp is not really sure it'll work out.

    In terms of giving the next generation a boost, the difference between 80k versus 20k is likely of far more relevance than (say) £1m versus £500k. The effect of the policy will be to hand out the £20k and in a number of cases, the £1m.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    wrt Hunt have people previously had a second, successful bite of the cherry?
  • Heathener said:

    MrEd said:

    For those who lust after BJ’s downfall, it’s worth reminding yourself that, despite all the alleged “this is what will finally do him” (sleaze, Dom Cummings etc), Labour has never been able to break much above 35%, which shows little appetite for Labour.

    That’s not just an issue of SKS, it’s the whole Labour brand. To many, including a lot of its former voters, it’s toxic, standing for a lot of the sh1t you see in the US at the moment around cultural issues. No one thinks plenty on the Labour side would not try and import what is happening in the States at the moment into the U.K. and SKS would be too weak to stop them.

    The biggest threat to BJ will come from the inside but I don’t think it will be the Cabinet, it will come from the newly elected MPs who may look to replace him with one of their own.

    There's some truth in this but it's about 12 months out of date.

    That Labour became toxic is indisputable. Some of that was to do with Brexit especially in the Red Wall seats. The Remainer Parliament cost Labour dearly.

    However, a lot of it was also down to the vile left-wing nature of Corbyn's unelectable rabble. SKS has done a very good job of steadily rebuilding the brand, showing that he can root out the anti-semites and place Labour back in the centre ground.

    Have Labour moved sufficiently far and fast? I don't know. But I do know that it's inaccurate to state that they "never been able to break much above 35%". In the last 6 opinion polls Labour has polled:

    37
    39
    37
    37
    40

    The only one that had them at 34% also had the Conservatives on 36% and the Greens on 10%.

    I grant you that this is still a far cry from Tony Blair landslide territory but just as the tories are undeniably and indisputably now falling, so Labour is slowly but surely rising.

    Remember too that Labour have more coalition routes to power than the tories, who only have the DUP that Johnson shafted.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    “ 37
    39
    37
    37
    40

    The only one that had them at 34% also had the Conservatives on 36% and the Greens on 10%.

    I grant you that this is still a far cry from Tony Blair landslide territory…”

    Is it really such a far cry from TB’s landslide territory? If memory serves me correctly, he was getting those kind of figures in England back then. The big difference is the total Labour collapse north of the border.

    Johann Lamont is largely forgotten in her homeland, and largely unknown in England, but she left a profound legacy on UK politics, which is still strongly felt to this day. Her idiotic decision (and it was blatantly idiotic even back in 2012) to drag her shambolic party into alliance with the Tories was a gift to that party. Only the Tories were ever going to benefit from BetterTogether. Everyone else - Labour, the LibDems, the people of England and Scotland - were huge losers from that disgraceful, thuggish campaign.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986
    TOPPING said:

    wrt Hunt have people previously had a second, successful bite of the cherry?

    Michael Howard? Although it was a coronation when he eventually got the job.
  • TOPPING said:

    wrt Hunt have people previously had a second, successful bite of the cherry?

    Boris, after his 2016 candidature was destroyed by Michael Gove.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    Is not a line that will play well on red wall doorsteps...
    It’s still an interesting question. The absence of a “status quo” bar is suspicious.
    It really isn't. At the moment we have a system that is unfair on everyone. "You won't lose your house" promises Peppa. And produces a system where only poor northerners lose their house.

    It doesn't matter that the status quo is bad. The proposal makes poor people in the north who need levelling up against the riches of the south feel like they are losing out to southerners again.

    With the policy being so egregiously one-sided to HYUFD's core southern vote, national polls are not going to capture northern anger. It was already there and this is going drive them spare, believe me.
    For those that are interested in the question, here's the source of the BBC graphic, which has a nice plot showing the current situation and the proposal.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/last-minute-changes-to-social-care-reforms-are-a-step-in-the-wrong-direction
    That seems fair. The nicer the part of the country you live in the less you pay.

    Think of it as the Hartlepool Tax. Someone has to live there and they're going to make sure they pay their just desserts for the pleasure. Happily their new Tory MP lives somewhere leafier, so no surprise to see her voting to impose this on her constituents when it doesn't affect her.

    Apparently the few remaining PB Peppa loyalists think people are so stupid as to not notice these things.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    I find it harder to say things about the social care thing than the rail thing because the social care thing makes me upset as well as angry. It’s distressing enough having a vulnerable parent needing care, without the sheer powerlessness and unfairness the govt plan throws up.

    It’s the sick, powerless feeling (I’ve had this feeling myself; it didn’t happen in the end but still could) of putting a family home on the line out of no other option…when others now won’t have to, because of the very economic inequalities govt claims to care so deeply about.


    https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1463075807778291717
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Roger said:

    Heathener said:

    I know this is The Guardian but it's a particularly good and devastating critique of yesterday.

    This does feel a bit like Johnson's P45 Theresa May moment. When a sufficient number of people twig that their leader isn't fit for purpose.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/boris-johnson-makes-pig-ear-winning-the-cbi-back-over

    Very good article and great line....

    " He quickly name checked several cars he had road tested before making engine noises. Vroooom vrooom raaaagh raaagh. Or something like that. He looked up, desperate for some laughs. None came. Driving under the influence clearly isn’t that funny."
    We knew it was basically over for May when people started openly laughing at her. Now people have stopped laughing at Boris, we might reach the same conclusion.

    We're close to lame duck territory now. Perhaps already there, perhaps not. Let's get another couple of weeks' of polling and find out whether the rot is permanent or just a temporary dunk into parity and back up again.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    Things against Hunt:

    1. The key one is that the Parliamentary constituency base - which he needs to get into the two - has moved against him in terms of composition. 2019 was his best chance;

    2: not a natural Red Wall leader - link that to 1.

    3: did Health. No great achievements to launch off
    4. Has "Rat Eyes" according to my late mother.
    His eyes have the same hollowed-out psychopath look about them as the actor who played Goebbels in Downfall.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    He's my local MP, and quite obviously dissenting enough to look different but not enough to seem disloyal - abstaining on the care bill was a good example. He's a very competent classic politician, pleasant to everyone and everything he says carefully structured, with escape routes. I doubt if he really has strong views on Brexit.

    I don't mind him, but I'm not sure today's Conservative Party want that sort of leader. They're more into populism, Brexit and fun, and Boris Johnson still provides all three of those.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Dura_Ace said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    Things against Hunt:

    1. The key one is that the Parliamentary constituency base - which he needs to get into the two - has moved against him in terms of composition. 2019 was his best chance;

    2: not a natural Red Wall leader - link that to 1.

    3: did Health. No great achievements to launch off
    4. Has "Rat Eyes" according to my late mother.
    His eyes have the same hollowed-out psychopath look about them as the actor who played Goebbels in Downfall.
    He's got an air of Michael Palin's Pontius Pilate
  • MrEd said:

    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    Things against Hunt:

    1. The key one is that the Parliamentary constituency base - which he needs to get into the two - has moved against him in terms of composition. 2019 was his best chance;

    2: not a natural Red Wall leader - link that to 1.

    3: did Health. No great achievements to launch off
    Jeremy Hunt's big problem is he undermined our Covid preparedness by suppressing the Cygnus findings instead of acting on them to increase stocks and capacity. Provided, of course, his leadership rivals remind MPs about this.
  • Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    The Conservative and Unionist Party is a crime syndicate. Nothing more, nothing less.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,662
    edited November 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    Vs. this time last year we have 2x case numbers, half the hospitalizations and a third of the deaths.
    From here, we have increased social contact (exponential) vs. increased boosters (linear).

    Last Winter, it took about a month for numbers in hospital to double. This Winter we have vaccines and immunity from previous infection so surely the rate of increase would be slower. Also molnupiravir and easy availability to lateral flow tests.

    So I can't see numbers in hospital getting to 20k levels like first wave, although I expect them to increase.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    Christmas party season is conveniently concentrated in people of working age - particularly young working age - who are less likely to get very ill. Christmas parties are also generally in early December, so most might have got it and recovered before their parents arrive for Christmas.
    I think you'll find venues are all booked out until about 23 December, so I think Christmas parties are continuing right through.

    There's also a multiplier effect here: people go to one party, get Covid, and then go to another and pass it on.

    And while I'm no expert, I suspect drunken snogs, and not knowing exactly which drink is yours are going to be powerful vectors of transmission.

  • Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    I suspect the issue is that no system is going to be fair - Boris's issue is that this is very easy to attack (it's a utterly regressive inheritance tax) and particularly hurts the Red Wall seats.

  • eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908
    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    Anyone else find it odd that even generic BBC cartoon people not in a Covid-related story are masked-up nowadays?

    Also think the poorest person deserves to keep a bit more. She is at lest exercising while the other two appear sedentary.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    I'm not convinced: I don't think the 2019 Conservative parliamentary party is particularly keen on an ex-Remainer like Hunt. He has no natural power base in the party. And every day that passes is another day out of the limelight for him.

    I guess the only way that Hunt could stand a chance would be if the UK suffered a major Xmas Covid crash, combined with a Brexit driven economic implosion.

    Neither of those seems terrible likely (although I am a little more concerned about the first than I was).
  • So the German government has said that masks aren't going to stop anyone getting covid.

    Very interesting graph here about the risk covid currently poses to the healthcare systems of European countries:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59378849
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    To be 'fair' it's very difficult to find some scene which is,. UNLESS social care is integrated with the NHS. As has been said before, there's also the unfairness that a cancer, or MND, sufferer gets much of their care free; and Alzheimer's patient doesn't, unless the relatives fight. Hard.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    edited November 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    While thats true, I think the deaths are going to come down. The evidence of the boosters is clear now in the case rates for the oldest members of the population. Cases as reported via lateral flow and PCR have been essentially at 40K to 45K for a few months. Recently the in hospital numbers and the admissions have started falling. I understand that some think there will be a lot more mixing in December, but I think we have a lot now - among the kids at school, at the football/rugby, in the pubs and cinemas. In some ways Christmas brings some elements that reduce mixing - kids off school for two weeks, workplaces shut (ok not all, but a lot of places now completely shut down).

    Plus - ICU is full of the unvaccinated. Who frankly, I have little time for. Its free to get the jab, its not hard to access, and it may just save your life.
    As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

    Indeed, up until a few weeks ago, I was one of the most optimistic posters on here. But I'm slowly becoming more concerned. Maybe I'm just overreacting to yesterday's numbers. I hope so.
    If you want to overreact then at least wait until tomorrow's numbers which I think will show the worst week on week reporting date rise in cases.

    In general what we're currently seeing is a slow drop off in hospitalisations and a slow rise in cases, I think the current case doubling time is about 11 weeks, it was 8 weeks last week so the rise is slowing down already.

    Ultimately, we're still very much the same as before, 55-60m have been exposed to the virus or had the vaccine. The last few remaining people without any antibodies are kids or a couple of million vaccine refusers who haven't had it yet. We're also doing third doses at a rate of about 2.5-2.8m per week. In just over 3 weeks schools close for two weeks and we'll be up to ~23-24m third doses with the vast majority of over 70s covered. Just yesterday we saw that 90% of over 80s who previously had two doses have now had a third one.

    I see no reason to panic, the only thing that would make me panic is a new immunity evading variant that spreads and is just as deadly as the original. So far that doesn't seem likely, delta and the subvariant don't dilute the vaccine binding efficiency very much at all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    .

    Rishi's contribution was shuffling the pages before the speech went into the red box.... ;)
    and making sure HS2 reached his constituency......
    Um, HS2 never gets to his constituency - and the locals won't like the impact of rebuilding the station to cope with the extra lines now required.

    As I mentioned on Sunday the ECML improvements identify a 20 minute speed increase from Darlington / Northallerton to London.

    Back in 2017 Network rail identified that when the track is increased to 140 mph, the total time saved will be 5 minutes (that's why spending £xbn doing so was instantly rejected then)
    Although to be fair, increasing linespeed to 140MPH isn't the best way of getting time savings. That's by reducing conflicts - the reason they've spent so much money building the blooming marvellous Werrington flyunder. From memory, the time savings by one such project (the Hitchin flyover further south of the ECML) were considerable, and far greater than just increasing the linespeed.

    But the best way of reducing conflicts would be... a new high-speed route ...
    Agreed, but the real anger in the north is far more over the cancellation of the new transPennine line than that of the section of HS2 from the Midlands to Leeds.
    Has it really been 'cancelled'? Some on here seem to think the new TransPennine line was a cast-iron, planned route. As far as I'm aware that's wrong: it was only ever a series of options for routes. The options created advantages for everyone, even if there was zero chance of them all being fulfilled because some of the options were contradictory.

    A problem with NPR is the disparate nature of the towns and cities; it is impossible to create one route that will serve Manchester/Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bradford and all the other places that want to be connected - especially with a high speed route. Yet that is what the different options promised.

    Part of this whole mess is that HS2 wasn't planned as part of a national network. Which was fair enough, until it was decided to plumb it into NPR / new routes. When that happened, the northern phases were always going to see alterations to get best benefits from both.

    I'm dismayed by the cancellation of most of HS2's eastern leg, but am unsurprised that NPR has failed to deliver what it promised to every city. It never was - as I said on here for yonks.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    The Conservative and Unionist Party is a crime syndicate. Nothing more, nothing less.
    That's unfair. They also have sidelines in farce and and deep satire :wink:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955

    So the German government has said that masks aren't going to stop anyone getting covid.

    Very interesting graph here about the risk covid currently poses to the healthcare systems of European countries:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59378849

    Those charts cheer me up, but I'm still concerned.
  • Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    As I said, the remaining PB Peppa apologists will try and defend anything.

    What Scott thinks isn't important to your chances. What red wall Tory voters think IS important. They are not going to look at these charts (which simply state the numbers without spin) and say "fair enough".

    Here and now we have a system that is unfair to everyone. Despite sensible cross-party support for a plan to replace it with one that is fair - with an explicit promise that you won't lose your home - we now have this.

    A new system where only the northern working poor - the literal Tory red wall electorate - will lose their homes. Just them. The people below them with no assets have none to lose. The people above them in nicer parts of the country keep most of theirs. This hits the red wall and only the red wall.

    Even you have to stop and consider how politically sensible this is for the Tories, surely?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    There is no doubt Starmer probably has the most appeal to business leaders of any Labour leaders since Blair and Brown (hence Corbynites also dislike him). Albeit probably more to Remainers than Leavers
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624
    edited November 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...




    It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'
  • eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
    Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...
  • eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    I suspect the issue is that no system is going to be fair - Boris's issue is that this is very easy to attack (it's a utterly regressive inheritance tax) and particularly hurts the Red Wall seats.

    Whatever system chosen would be easy to attack.

    For example how much do people with their own homes pay compared to people with no assets.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    The median house price of seats the Tories held in 2019 was £270,000. Hold those and that would be enough to ensure the Tories still had most seats at least.

    For the vast majority of estates the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care stops them losing potentially all their assets over £23,250 in residential care costs as is the case now
  • Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    .

    Rishi's contribution was shuffling the pages before the speech went into the red box.... ;)
    and making sure HS2 reached his constituency......
    Um, HS2 never gets to his constituency - and the locals won't like the impact of rebuilding the station to cope with the extra lines now required.

    As I mentioned on Sunday the ECML improvements identify a 20 minute speed increase from Darlington / Northallerton to London.

    Back in 2017 Network rail identified that when the track is increased to 140 mph, the total time saved will be 5 minutes (that's why spending £xbn doing so was instantly rejected then)
    Although to be fair, increasing linespeed to 140MPH isn't the best way of getting time savings. That's by reducing conflicts - the reason they've spent so much money building the blooming marvellous Werrington flyunder. From memory, the time savings by one such project (the Hitchin flyover further south of the ECML) were considerable, and far greater than just increasing the linespeed.

    But the best way of reducing conflicts would be... a new high-speed route ...
    Agreed, but the real anger in the north is far more over the cancellation of the new transPennine line than that of the section of HS2 from the Midlands to Leeds.
    Has it really been 'cancelled'? Some on here seem to think the new TransPennine line was a cast-iron, planned route. As far as I'm aware that's wrong: it was only ever a series of options for routes. The options created advantages for everyone, even if there was zero chance of them all being fulfilled because some of the options were contradictory.

    A problem with NPR is the disparate nature of the towns and cities; it is impossible to create one route that will serve Manchester/Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bradford and all the other places that want to be connected - especially with a high speed route. Yet that is what the different options promised.

    Part of this whole mess is that HS2 wasn't planned as part of a national network. Which was fair enough, until it was decided to plumb it into NPR / new routes. When that happened, the northern phases were always going to see alterations to get best benefits from both.

    I'm dismayed by the cancellation of most of HS2's eastern leg, but am unsurprised that NPR has failed to deliver what it promised to every city. It never was - as I said on here for yonks.
    Yes. It has been cancelled. On something like 50 occasions the Tories pledged to build NPR in full. Would you like the link to the PM in Manchester saying literally that?

    As the only surviving elements of anything that can be called NPR is a high speed line from Manchester to Marsden and a crayon sketch of a line from Warrington to the airport, the promise is not being delivered. It has been cancelled.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Were I still in NE England ramping for Labour, I'd been looking at ramming home some of the messages that are already in circulation. "Make Brexit Work" and "Deliver the Promises".

    I witnessed the hollowing out of the Labour vote, spent a couple of years trying to get the local party grandees to wake up and engage the threat then gave up. I then witnessed with great amusement as places with constant poor turnout voted in very large numbers twice - in 2016 and in 2019.

    The unifying thing that cut through was that Labour had betrayed them by never delivering, and that Brexit would let their communities prosper like people down south. Hence why "levelling up" has been such a Tory mantra - they could see the disparity. The betrayal of that promise can sink the Tories and work for Labour if - and its a big IF - the Tories keep on this path and Labour prey on it.

    What the Labour types won't like is that as in the 80s the Overton Window has shifted. What the Tories promised in 2019 was popular, they are already betraying that promise (remember how so many described how they had only lent their vote?). If Labour pledged to actual deliver what the Tories offered and have already scrapped, they can win enough of these seats back.

    Enough of these seats. Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    Scotland is a different issue which SKS will also need a plan to resolve, they can't win Scotland which means they need a plan (sooner rather than later) to ensure Scotland isn't used against them come the election.
    Labour need to start asking themselves: what do Scots really want? And then designing policies to meet those wants.

    It is two decades since Scottish Labour looked competent in that most basic of political skills: sensing the lie of the land. Back then they had an impressive roster of intelligent, high-profile, sympathetic figures who appealed to the Scottish electorate. Now they have… Lord “Bubbles” McConnell, Jackie Baillie and the Wholesale Millionaire. Not a very inspiring offering.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    edited November 2021

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    I suspect the issue is that no system is going to be fair - Boris's issue is that this is very easy to attack (it's a utterly regressive inheritance tax) and particularly hurts the Red Wall seats.

    Whatever system chosen would be easy to attack.

    For example how much do people with their own homes pay compared to people with no assets.
    It's what cost May the 2017 election and will impact the next one (see the timing).

    But not all solutions are attackable. The previous (Didcott?) set of plans ensured that the Council paid contributions were in the £96,000 - and that would result in the poorest say contribution £4-50,000 and still having a decent nest egg left over.

    A scheme that was 40% of net worth or £96,000 (whichever is the lower) would easily fix the issues.

    Oh and while it's being discussed now, it goes live in October 2023 - as the new boundaries hit and it's time for the next election).

    So the timing is remarkably bad.
  • Strange that the previous thread was cut short with only 29 comments.

    What is extraordinary is that the polling question asked was just about the most extreme that could have been devised. i.e. An implied COMPLETE lockdown on the unvaccinated for an INDEFINITE period. Yet 45% still supported that, compared to 32% against.

    The question could easily have been posed in less extreme terms, something along the lines of
    "Should those who choose to remain unvaccinated be prevented from mixing in crowded public places over the winter period?"
    Based on the earlier poll, I would expect responses to be about 60% in favour to about 25% against. There is a great deal of anger over those who by their foolish actions are causing a continuing huge wave of unnecessary deaths and bringing the wider health service to its knees.
  • rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Betting Tip from PB alumni Alastair Meeks
    ·
    26m
    Jeremy Hunt - last matched at 16.5 (just over 15/1) on Betfair. Those look good odds for someone with extensive senior experience, who has already made the last two once, who offers the virtues that the PM lacks and who transparently intends to run if there’s an early vacancy.

    After all, why would he be doing the media rounds this morning.

    I'm not convinced: I don't think the 2019 Conservative parliamentary party is particularly keen on an ex-Remainer like Hunt. He has no natural power base in the party. And every day that passes is another day out of the limelight for him.

    I guess the only way that Hunt could stand a chance would be if the UK suffered a major Xmas Covid crash, combined with a Brexit driven economic implosion.

    Neither of those seems terrible likely (although I am a little more concerned about the first than I was).
    Jeremy Hunt is the man who managed to get Japanese and Chinese mixed up when talking about his own Chinese wife on an official visit to China:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-45004765
  • Just had a slightly odd experience. You know how sometimes you can feel your pulse (not by deliberately checking it, just in a blood vessel above your eye or suchlike)?

    Just had that, only my vision altered very slightly and I felt it, faintly, in my eyes. Not painful or anything but most peculiar.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    It was never, apparently, offered to the BBC, because the Corporation messed about with a previous offering from the owners and originators, the Elf Factory, so the team took umbrage. See 'How Peppa Pig brought home the bacon' in the FT from 30/7/2010.
    Yet another 'error' from Johnson, but one calculated to bring discredit on the BBC.
    I wonder where the BBC would have got $3.9 billion from to spend on a childrens' TV character in 2019?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,603

    Just had a slightly odd experience. You know how sometimes you can feel your pulse (not by deliberately checking it, just in a blood vessel above your eye or suchlike)?

    Just had that, only my vision altered very slightly and I felt it, faintly, in my eyes. Not painful or anything but most peculiar.

    At a guess, you're tired and need a good night's sleep.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,603
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    I suspect the issue is that no system is going to be fair - Boris's issue is that this is very easy to attack (it's a utterly regressive inheritance tax) and particularly hurts the Red Wall seats.

    Whatever system chosen would be easy to attack.

    For example how much do people with their own homes pay compared to people with no assets.
    It's what cost May the 2017 election and will impact the next one (see the timing).

    But not all solutions are attackable. The previous (Didcott?) set of plans ensured that the Council paid contributions were in the £96,000 - and that would result in the poorest say contribution £4-50,000 and still having a decent nest egg left over.

    A scheme that was 40% of net worth or £96,000 (whichever is the lower) would easily fix the issues.

    Oh and while it's being discussed now, it goes live in October 2023 - as the new boundaries hit and it's time for the next election).

    So the timing is remarkably bad.
    Those previous plans are now at the parkway.
  • eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
    Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...
    I look forward to the period when the SNP collapse. It’s the independence era.
  • Strange that the previous thread was cut short with only 29 comments.

    What is extraordinary is that the polling question asked was just about the most extreme that could have been devised. i.e. An implied COMPLETE lockdown on the unvaccinated for an INDEFINITE period. Yet 45% still supported that, compared to 32% against.

    The question could easily have been posed in less extreme terms, something along the lines of
    "Should those who choose to remain unvaccinated be prevented from mixing in crowded public places over the winter period?"
    Based on the earlier poll, I would expect responses to be about 60% in favour to about 25% against. There is a great deal of anger over those who by their foolish actions are causing a continuing huge wave of unnecessary deaths and bringing the wider health service to its knees.

    The answer isn't to restrict the unvaccinated - the quicker they all get infected the better.

    The answer is to stop them getting hospital treatment - if they want 'natural immunity' then they have to accept that there is nothing natural about modern hospitals:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/23/covid-patients-in-icu-now-almost-all-unvaccinated-says-oxford-scientist

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin
  • Mr. B2, ha, I do sleep badly. But I've been doing that for quite some time, and this was new. I think it was just the strange pulse thingummyjig, but having it in the eyeballs was a little different.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    It was never, apparently, offered to the BBC, because the Corporation messed about with a previous offering from the owners and originators, the Elf Factory, so the team took umbrage. See 'How Peppa Pig brought home the bacon' in the FT from 30/7/2010.
    Yet another 'error' from Johnson, but one calculated to bring discredit on the BBC.
    I wonder where the BBC would have got $3.9 billion from to spend on a childrens' TV character in 2019?
    It would appear that they could have had it for a lot less back in the day. They would then have had a share in said $3.9billion.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...




    It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'
    It's not a tax
  • Strange that the previous thread was cut short with only 29 comments.

    What is extraordinary is that the polling question asked was just about the most extreme that could have been devised. i.e. An implied COMPLETE lockdown on the unvaccinated for an INDEFINITE period. Yet 45% still supported that, compared to 32% against.

    The question could easily have been posed in less extreme terms, something along the lines of
    "Should those who choose to remain unvaccinated be prevented from mixing in crowded public places over the winter period?"
    Based on the earlier poll, I would expect responses to be about 60% in favour to about 25% against. There is a great deal of anger over those who by their foolish actions are causing a continuing huge wave of unnecessary deaths and bringing the wider health service to its knees.

    We had a technical issue overnight that meant that no comments were possible for long periods on the previous thread.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    How does that compare to the current situation?
    Is not a line that will play well on red wall doorsteps...
    Perhaps not. We are too far out from the next election (probably) to hear what Labour would do instead, but its hard to find a f
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

    Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

    It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

    Vs. this time last year we have 2x case numbers, half the hospitalizations and a third of the deaths.
    From here, we have increased social contact (exponential) vs. increased boosters (linear).

    Last Winter, it took about a month for numbers in hospital to double. This Winter we have vaccines and immunity from previous infection so surely the rate of increase would be slower. Also molnupiravir and easy availability to lateral flow tests.

    So I can't see numbers in hospital getting to 20k levels like first wave, although I expect them to increase.
    Numbers in hospital are currently FALLING, not least due to the boosters. Over 15M given now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited November 2021

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
    Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...
    I look forward to the period when the SNP collapse. It’s the independence era.
    Not necessarily.

    If Starmer becomes PM needing SNP support and grants them an indyref2 which No again narrowly wins, then could be the time for the SNP vote to start to fall back to Labour too.

    It was the 51% No to independence vote in Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 which gradually led to a decline in the BQ vote after, certainly at the Federal level.

    In 1993 for example remember the BQ were the official opposition to the Liberals in Canada with 54 seats, that fell to 44 in 1997 and to 38 in 2000.

    At provincial level the Liberals also returned to government in Quebec by the 2003 election
  • eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
    Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...
    I look forward to the period when the SNP collapse. It’s the independence era.
    If that era comes then it will possibly coincide with the Scottish economy collapse. Post "independence", most pragmatic Scots will wonder; "what was the point of it?" Much like pragmatic Brits in general post Brexit. Nationalism is a divisive creed for dumbarses.
  • Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    As I said, the remaining PB Peppa apologists will try and defend anything.

    What Scott thinks isn't important to your chances. What red wall Tory voters think IS important. They are not going to look at these charts (which simply state the numbers without spin) and say "fair enough".

    Here and now we have a system that is unfair to everyone. Despite sensible cross-party support for a plan to replace it with one that is fair - with an explicit promise that you won't lose your home - we now have this.

    A new system where only the northern working poor - the literal Tory red wall electorate - will lose their homes. Just them. The people below them with no assets have none to lose. The people above them in nicer parts of the country keep most of theirs. This hits the red wall and only the red wall.

    Even you have to stop and consider how politically sensible this is for the Tories, surely?
    The current system already unfairly penalises some.

    The new system will unfairly penalise some.

    Any other system would also unfairly penalise some.

    That's the reality behind any form of taxation.

    Some people will support whatever a political party will do and some people will oppose whatever they do.

    I support and oppose or apathetical don't care depending on the issue involved.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Apparently it's British
    Only is Hasbro is British?
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

    It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

    There is no contradiction.

    BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

    He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

    BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

    A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

    And that's it,

    And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

    That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?
    And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

    Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.
    Peppa Pig is not American!
    Its owned by Americans...
    Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

    ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).
    It was never, apparently, offered to the BBC, because the Corporation messed about with a previous offering from the owners and originators, the Elf Factory, so the team took umbrage. See 'How Peppa Pig brought home the bacon' in the FT from 30/7/2010.
    Yet another 'error' from Johnson, but one calculated to bring discredit on the BBC.
    I wonder where the BBC would have got $3.9 billion from to spend on a childrens' TV character in 2019?
    It would appear that they could have had it for a lot less back in the day. They would then have had a share in said $3.9billion.
    the BBC never had Peppa Pig, it was the core child program on Channel 5.
  • Farooq said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...




    It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'
    It's not a tax
    Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

    1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

    2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

    3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

    Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

    I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

    Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
    Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...
    I look forward to the period when the SNP collapse. It’s the independence era.
    If that era comes then it will possibly coincide with the Scottish economy collapse. Post "independence", most pragmatic Scots will wonder; "what was the point of it?" Much like pragmatic Brits in general post Brexit. Nationalism is a divisive creed for dumbarses.
    Nationalism isn't JUST a divisive creed for dumbarses, it's also a necessary component of democracy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Heathener said:

    I know this is The Guardian but it's a particularly good and devastating critique of yesterday.

    This does feel a bit like Johnson's P45 Theresa May moment. When a sufficient number of people twig that their leader isn't fit for purpose.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/boris-johnson-makes-pig-ear-winning-the-cbi-back-over

    Yesterday was a very bad day for the Tories IMO.
    Yes it was. The ineptness of the CBI speech covers up the ineptness of the Social Care Bill and railways of last week. It is easy to blame Johnson, and he has done a great deal to justify that derision, but there is more to it than that.

    I don't believe that Johnson has the grasp of detail to make his own breakfast, let alone to gut HS2 and NPR in favour of a hodgepodge of upgrades, neither does he do the sums on Social Care. These are policies coming from elsewhere in this chaotic and unruly government. Not only are the policies poorly thought out, but also being pushed through without proper debate and party management.

    Johnson is a figurehead of blithering idiocy, but he sits on top of a government of arrogance, sleaze and incoherence. It is not just that he is Ratnering the brand as per @Roger but that the government itself is rotten.
    The cheese paring and salami slicing and saving pennies approach which are causing the problems in transport and social care are coming from the department which holds the purse strings - the Treasury.

    The PM's failing is that he has not got a grip on the budget and what all these figures mean. He is not in control of the Treasury or his Chancellor and so can neither properly defend his government's policy or ensure that it is what he wants and in line with the government's stated priorities.

    If he is replaced by Sunak, what makes Tory MPs think that suddenly the money will be there - painlessly?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719
    Your regular reminder (usually from me, whenever this line about Boris only beating "discredited" opponents is bandied about) that Livingstone and (especially) Corbyn are only discredited because Johnson beat them, not the other way around.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    Farooq said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...




    It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'
    It's not a tax
    Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

    1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

    2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

    3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

    Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

    I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

    Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.
    If you are in hospital though you are normally only there for your operation and afterwards before returning home.

    If you go to a care home you are generally a permanent resident until death
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    And if another method was chosen you'd be pasting something saying how 'unfair' that was.
    As I said, the remaining PB Peppa apologists will try and defend anything.

    What Scott thinks isn't important to your chances. What red wall Tory voters think IS important. They are not going to look at these charts (which simply state the numbers without spin) and say "fair enough".

    Here and now we have a system that is unfair to everyone. Despite sensible cross-party support for a plan to replace it with one that is fair - with an explicit promise that you won't lose your home - we now have this.

    A new system where only the northern working poor - the literal Tory red wall electorate - will lose their homes. Just them. The people below them with no assets have none to lose. The people above them in nicer parts of the country keep most of theirs. This hits the red wall and only the red wall.

    Even you have to stop and consider how politically sensible this is for the Tories, surely?
    The current system already unfairly penalises some.

    The new system will unfairly penalise some.

    Any other system would also unfairly penalise some.

    That's the reality behind any form of taxation.

    Some people will support whatever a political party will do and some people will oppose whatever they do.

    I support and oppose or apathetical don't care depending on the issue involved.
    But the system could easily be designed to reduce the total size of the unfair penalisation.

    It's almost like the current system is being proposed so that it can be fixed as a compromise later but it would be nicer if they just implemented it in the first place.

    In my mind it's clear that Boris isn't paying any attention here as to how things play out while Rishi is creating more and more reasons for the Red Wall seats to back him as he reverses the stupid ideas he's given Boris to sell.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

    The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

    If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

    And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

    It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

    With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

    As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

    This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...
    The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

    Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

    So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
    (1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
    (2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
    (3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

    Its just absurd.
    The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
    The direct opposite of levelling up.
    The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

    Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.
    Still would leave them short without Scotland.
    What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

    At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.
    Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...
    I look forward to the period when the SNP collapse. It’s the independence era.
    Not necessarily.

    If Starmer becomes PM needing SNP support and grants them an indyref2 which No again narrowly wins, then could be the time for the SNP vote to start to fall back to Labour too.

    It was the 51% No to independence vote in Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 which gradually led to a decline in the BQ vote after, certainly at the Federal level.

    In 1993 for example remember the BQ were the official opposition to the Liberals in Canada with 54 seats, that fell to 44 in 1997 and to 38 in 2000.

    At provincial level the Liberals also returned to government in Quebec by the 2003 election
    They don't grow maple syrup in Scotland. (Though we do have a former MSP who spoke French as a first language.) Maybe there are other differences, no?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Farooq said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...




    It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'
    It's not a tax
    Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

    1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

    2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

    3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

    Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

    I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

    Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.
    Well yes. If the argument is that the funding models should be the same then one or the other needs to change. I'm not clear that they should be the same. There's another way to do this, through general taxation and a wealth tax. I don't know whether that's the right way or not. It's far too complicated for the limited amount of attention I've given it.
This discussion has been closed.