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

135

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    eek said:

    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.
    Read the article I referred to upthread. The BBC could have had it but messed the creators about so much over an earlier programme, the Black Knights, that they made the decision not to offer it to them.
    The BBC doesn't come out of it well, but not as badly as was suggested.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    That hospitalisation risk graph is definitely a completely new stat, I'd love to see it as a time series looking back from January this year to now. Specifically I wonder what our May onwards unlockdown has done for potential hospitalisations vs everywhere else in Europe not unlocking down fully. I expect it would show the UK potential hospitalisations falling every week as more people enter the immunity funnel from infection, then standing still as waning immunity offset new infections+new vaccinations and then a huge sharp decrease when they booster programme got going.
  • rcs1000 said:

    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.
    The chart suggests that if everyone in England caught covid immediately then there would be about 30k hospitalisations.

    Which is less than the peak in January.

    Given the rate that boosters are being given plus the way the unvaccinated are being burned through that possible hospitalization number should rapidly fall.
  • HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605

    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.
    How? The BBC has never really been involved with it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    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.
    The difference between him and pretty well any other likely contender for the Tory leadership is that he appears able to recognise and learn from his mistakes.
    Another difference between him and the rest of the contenders is that he is evidently less of a psychopath than he looks.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited November 2021
    HYUFD said:

    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
    'Median'.

    'Seats the Tories held.'

    In other words - **** the Labour voters.

    Edit: Which is a perfectly valid psephological strategy (IF that median assumption doesn't derail it).

    But is it a way to run a modern state without robbing the poor even more?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    edited November 2021
    MaxPB said:

    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.
    How? The BBC has never really been involved with it.
    See the article to which I referred. Can't share due to FT copyright rules.

  • Farooq said:

    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.
    I don't know why there was nobody flying the flag for "it's a start".

    Labour could, for example, easily pledge to raise the floor or lower the cap. Once there is an insurance market, they could pledge that the state would pay the insurance for some people - or everyone.

    If they were feeling radical, they could extend it to hotel costs - or start a national care service that provides hotel costs free to those in need.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    'Median'.

    'Seats the Tories held.'

    In other words - **** the Labour voters.

    Edit: Which is a perfectly valid psephological strategy (IF that median assumption doesn't derail it).

    But is it a way to run a modern state without robbing the poor even more?
    It's a way to end up continually subsidising the North for evermore - but HYUFD isn't bright enough to understand that.

  • Nigelb 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
    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.
    The difference between him and pretty well any other likely contender for the Tory leadership is that he appears able to recognise and learn from his mistakes.
    Another difference between him and the rest of the contenders is that he is evidently less of a psychopath than he looks.
    Among the Conservative leadership contenders in 2019 I though that Gove looked like the potential psychopath and that Hunt looked robotic.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
    I do wonder how many of those 270 days could be done a lot cheaper (and more pleasantly) in care homes. Sadly, however, that sector is so destroyed it isn't going to happen without a lot of careful thought and a lot of investment.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    Farooq said:

    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.
    I don't know why there was nobody flying the flag for "it's a start".

    Labour could, for example, easily pledge to raise the floor or lower the cap. Once there is an insurance market, they could pledge that the state would pay the insurance for some people - or everyone.

    If they were feeling radical, they could extend it to hotel costs - or start a national care service that provides hotel costs free to those in need.

    Social and long-term sick care is in a MESS. This proposal, arguably is a sort of start, but to say it's a good answer is to demonstrate ignorance of enormous proportions.
  • Trade stats fans rejoice. HMG brings us (no spoilers!):-

    Official statistics overview: The impacts of EU exit and coronavirus (COVID-19) on UK trade in services: November 2021

    An analysis of UK trade in services in the context of the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the end of the EU transition period on 31 December 2020.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/theimpactsofeuexitandcoronaviruscovid19onuktradeinservices/november2021
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
    I do wonder how many of those 270 days could be done a lot cheaper (and more pleasantly) in care homes. Sadly, however, that sector is so destroyed it isn't going to happen without a lot of careful thought and a lot of investment.
    Careful thought is absolutely right. And the investment isn't just in bricks and mortar; it's staff.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Nigelb 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
    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.
    The difference between him and pretty well any other likely contender for the Tory leadership is that he appears able to recognise and learn from his mistakes.
    Another difference between him and the rest of the contenders is that he is evidently less of a psychopath than he looks.
    Among the Conservative leadership contenders in 2019 I though that Gove looked like the potential psychopath and that Hunt looked robotic.
    Gove isn't a psycho. He has the zeal of a true believer, and the energy and enthusiasm that makes him look like a single-minded evangelist. I think he truly cares about the world and the people in it, to an abnormal extent. I don't agree with his ideas and he's certainly a tiresome weirdo, but his heart seems to be in the right place.
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
    I do wonder how many of those 270 days could be done a lot cheaper (and more pleasantly) in care homes. Sadly, however, that sector is so destroyed it isn't going to happen without a lot of careful thought and a lot of investment.
    Dilnot is helpful to the care sector.

    I think this point is often missed - it's not just about the user experience, it is also preferable to the provider to have a model of social care funding.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    'Median'.

    'Seats the Tories held.'

    In other words - **** the Labour voters.

    Edit: Which is a perfectly valid psephological strategy (IF that median assumption doesn't derail it).

    But is it a way to run a modern state without robbing the poor even more?
    It's a way to end up continually subsidising the North for evermore - but HYUFD isn't bright enough to understand that.

    I am not unaccountably reminded of Matthew 13:12:

    For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
    I do wonder how many of those 270 days could be done a lot cheaper (and more pleasantly) in care homes. Sadly, however, that sector is so destroyed it isn't going to happen without a lot of careful thought and a lot of investment.
    Those Trusts provide mental health support and it will be a long time before we have a social care system that can deal with all of them.

    But, even in acute Trusts (supposed to be "in and out"), 350,000 people a year stay more than 21 days and I do not think we need to see the bell curve to know that this means 10s of thousands stay many months.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    'Median'.

    'Seats the Tories held.'

    In other words - **** the Labour voters.

    Edit: Which is a perfectly valid psephological strategy (IF that median assumption doesn't derail it).

    But is it a way to run a modern state without robbing the poor even more?
    The poor generally don't own any property at all, they live in social housing or on housing benefit so this doesn't make any difference to them. They still get all their care costs paid as they did before.

    For the vast majority of home owners they are better off with the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care than now where all their assets over £23,250 are liable for care costs, including their home for residential care
  • Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

    He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.
    He really, really doesn't

    God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

    If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes
    I’m intrigued by the concept that Boris Johnson is “gifted” and has a “powerful intelligence”.

    “Gifted” is normally a quality attributed to a child or young adult. There is something tragic about saying it of a man close to 60.

    The only evidence I’ve ever seen for him having a “powerful intelligence” is him narrowly losing the Greeks vs Romans debate to Professor Mary Beard. It was a surprisingly close call and not the Prof walkover you’d expect. (A truly intelligent debater would have whopped Beard, as it is blatantly obvious that the Greeks were more impressive.)

    Pericles and his ilk succumbed to the Plague of Athens. Johnson and his despicable ilk will be remembered as the Plague of England.
  • 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.
    Or maybe the BJ experience has put them off populism.
  • Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719
    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    If Corbyn had won in 2019, no-one would be saying he was discredited. It would simply be taken as a sign that all the attempts to discredit him had either not worked, or backfired. Your point that elections are tests of credibility is absolutely correct - and it is primarily because of Johnson's results that we know he has it. By extension, if you view him negatively (as many on here do), it is therefore absolutely necessary to view his defeated past opponents as having been worse.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,183
    IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Is anyone saying that who was finding it funny before? I've never found the joke funny. A lot of people never did. But I'm not convinced that I'm hearing people who did find it funny have changed their minds.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,822
    edited November 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...


    Two problems with the current system:

    Alzheimer's and dementia in general is treated as a care problem and not a disease like any other.
    There's a moral hazard in the current system in that those who save money for their retirement have to pay more than those who burn it all (or give it away) first.

    Increasing tax to pay for everyone would be eye watering, and the whole army of people caring for their elderly relatives and saving the taxpayer billions (of which I am one) would have to be paid at the same rate as the commercial sector to make it 'fair'.

    The reality is that no system will be 'fair' to everyone.


    PS remember that currently those with assets currently pay more for the same service than those without - often as much as 50% more than those paid for directly by the state.

  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited November 2021
    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited November 2021

    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.
    Or maybe the BJ experience has put them off populism.
    I find that hard to swallow! They’re obv not doing it right
  • Carnyx said:

    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?
    One difference is that Canada has preserved 16 Canadian-Scottish regiments plus a regiment of artillery while the Scotland has one. Perhaps with HYUFD-esque cunning the powers that be have planned ahead for the insurrection to come.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782
    Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

    A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.
  • kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
  • isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Endillion said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    If Corbyn had won in 2019, no-one would be saying he was discredited. It would simply be taken as a sign that all the attempts to discredit him had either not worked, or backfired. Your point that elections are tests of credibility is absolutely correct - and it is primarily because of Johnson's results that we know he has it. By extension, if you view him negatively (as many on here do), it is therefore absolutely necessary to view his defeated past opponents as having been worse.
    I don't think that is necessary. You can think Johnson is a total charlatan yet acknowledge his ability as an election winner. The downside with this view - which is my view - is that it gets you more frustrated with the public than with him, which is not a great place to be.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Eabhal said:

    Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

    A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

    Supposedly we've hit lucky with the flu vaccine and it's protecting against this year's main flu strains.

    Bigger question is who has actually had it given that the plan seems to be to offer it alongside booster shots.

    We had ours in September because it's something I sort out as soon as they become available due to missing out in the past.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986
    Eabhal said:

    Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

    A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

    Week ending | 5-year average (pre-COVID) | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | Excess non-COVID deaths
    24-Sep-21: 9,264 | 888 | 9,796 | 532
    01-Oct-21: 9,377 | 783 | 9,727 | 350
    08-Oct-21: 9,555 | 666 | 10,141 | 586
    15-Oct-21: 9,811 | 713 | 10,464 | 653
    22-Oct-21: 9,865 | 792 | 10,516 | 651
    29-Oct-21: 9,759 | 859 | 10,128 | 369
    05-Nov-21: 9,891 | 995 | 10,555 | 664
    12-Nov-21: 10,331 | 1,020 | 11,030 | 699

    Excess non-COVID deaths are fairly steady at the moment.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719
    edited November 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Endillion said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    If Corbyn had won in 2019, no-one would be saying he was discredited. It would simply be taken as a sign that all the attempts to discredit him had either not worked, or backfired. Your point that elections are tests of credibility is absolutely correct - and it is primarily because of Johnson's results that we know he has it. By extension, if you view him negatively (as many on here do), it is therefore absolutely necessary to view his defeated past opponents as having been worse.
    I don't think that is necessary. You can think Johnson is a total charlatan yet acknowledge his ability as an election winner. The downside with this view - which is my view - is that it gets you more frustrated with the public than with him, which is not a great place to be.
    I agree*. My objection is with the view that he's got no real ability as an election winner, based on discounting all his wins because the opposition was crap. I'm arguing that it's circular logic: the opposition is only seen as crap because it lost to Johnson.

    *that it's not necessary
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    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.
    Is anyone saying that who was finding it funny before? I've never found the joke funny. A lot of people never did. But I'm not convinced that I'm hearing people who did find it funny have changed their minds.
    Though certain PB BJ fans did say they found his opening an umbrella schtick at a memorial to dead policemen was hilarious (Leon- "a comic genius!!!"), it's mostly been about observing how voters loved the BJokes. People on here are too clever to fall for that stuff of course.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

    A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

    Supposedly we've hit lucky with the flu vaccine and it's protecting against this year's main flu strains.

    Bigger question is who has actually had it given that the plan seems to be to offer it alongside booster shots.

    We had ours in September because it's something I sort out as soon as they become available due to missing out in the past.
    Aiui the shortage of flu jabs didn't materialise either and everyone who wanted one was able to get one. People can still walk in and get one if they want as well.

    Like so many scare stories it feels like this was manufactured by agenda having blue tick wankers. Same as the supposed petrol shortage that never was or the turkey shortage that definitely isn't (Waitrose had freezers full of them over the weekend). The only thing I've seen short at the moment is a few types of pasta but even then it's still available generally just not always.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 364

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    Watching with my husband, we were both convinced all 4 would go through to the final as there was so little between them. My bet is that Chigs will win tonight as they keep going on about how he only started cooking during lockdown and it would make a good story (although Chigs did let slip once that that he was baking pre-lockdown but it was during lockdown that he became serious about it). But as I was wrong about all 4 going through to the final, I am probably wrong about Chigs being the winner.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited November 2021
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.
    Your radar is still in tip top working order, not a fan.
    I did hear whispers of the German master baker though.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    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?
    One difference is that Canada has preserved 16 Canadian-Scottish regiments plus a regiment of artillery while the Scotland has one. Perhaps with HYUFD-esque cunning the powers that be have planned ahead for the insurrection to come.
    Technically there is also the Scots Guards but that is really part of the Brigade of Guards.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908
    edited November 2021

    HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
    Not necessarily disputing that, but do you have a link to a study? There are plenty of gotchas in hospital data analysis due, for example, to incorrect data. There will be people in the data who have been in hospital since 1 January 1800 (I think that's the value that gets filled in if the data are missing) and a few of those, if not accounted for, can obviously skew the mean to ridiculous extents.

    TLDR: Where was the figure from and did someone competent produce it?

    (I'm also reminded, on the other side of the data quality argument, of a famous incident of someone rubbishing NHS data because of the high number of obstetrics episodes for males - might even have been in published paper, letter to bmj or the like... People with more knowledge of the data pointed out that male babies have obstetrics episodes, just as much as female babies and half as much as mothers)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 467
    edited November 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    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?
    One difference is that Canada has preserved 16 Canadian-Scottish regiments plus a regiment of artillery while the Scotland has one. Perhaps with HYUFD-esque cunning the powers that be have planned ahead for the insurrection to come.
    Technically there is also the Scots Guards but that is really part of the Brigade of Guards.
    And the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and 19 Regiment RA. All the Canadian-Scottish "regiments" are two-company reserve formations, and the regiment of artillery is a one-battery reserve formation.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

    A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

    Supposedly we've hit lucky with the flu vaccine and it's protecting against this year's main flu strains.

    Bigger question is who has actually had it given that the plan seems to be to offer it alongside booster shots.

    We had ours in September because it's something I sort out as soon as they become available due to missing out in the past.
    Aiui the shortage of flu jabs didn't materialise either and everyone who wanted one was able to get one. People can still walk in and get one if they want as well.

    Like so many scare stories it feels like this was manufactured by agenda having blue tick wankers. Same as the supposed petrol shortage that never was or the turkey shortage that definitely isn't (Waitrose had freezers full of them over the weekend). The only thing I've seen short at the moment is a few types of pasta but even then it's still available generally just not always.
    I think it's reasonable to keep an eye on it and include it in a set of modelling scenarios. Problem is twitter distills it into a panic.

    There are two schools of thought online - with no flu past year, herd immunity has dropped off and we are more vulnerable. Or - flu had had no room to mutate, so much less potent.

    I'd forgotten that the flu vaccine is hit and miss, hope eek is right.
  • HYUFD said:

    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
    So I'm going to have to find £86,000 plus hotel costs plus the top-up to get somewhere that doesn't smell of wee. I believe from the new rules that you can top up yourself. So how much will I need? And what happens to your state pension when you go into a care home?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,752
    Somebody said earlier that the tipping point would come when enough of his supporters stopped laughing with Boris and started laughing at him. I think we're getting close to that point, but not quite there yet.

    I think it's time for the opposition to encourage the trend to laughing at Boris by taking the piss out of him more. Probably not Starmer himself, though the odd jibe wouldn't go amiss, but his henchmen and women should start pointing out what a ridiculous figure the PM is. There's plenty of material to draw on from the last few weeks.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    Endillion said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    If Corbyn had won in 2019, no-one would be saying he was discredited. It would simply be taken as a sign that all the attempts to discredit him had either not worked, or backfired. Your point that elections are tests of credibility is absolutely correct - and it is primarily because of Johnson's results that we know he has it. By extension, if you view him negatively (as many on here do), it is therefore absolutely necessary to view his defeated past opponents as having been worse.
    I don't think that is necessary. You can think Johnson is a total charlatan yet acknowledge his ability as an election winner. The downside with this view - which is my view - is that it gets you more frustrated with the public than with him, which is not a great place to be.
    I agree*. My objection is with the view that he's got no real ability as an election winner, based on discounting all his wins because the opposition was crap. I'm arguing that it's circular logic: the opposition is only seen as crap because it lost to Johnson.

    *that it's not necessary
    Yes. If you see Johnson for what he is and wish to avoid the "we need a new public" inference you are forced into a position of believing he only wins because he's lucky with opponents. I think this is what goes on with many people on my side of life.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
    Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

    But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.
    Your radar is still in tip top working order, not a fan.
    I did hear whispers of the German master baker though.
    Thought there'd be more of a 'twitterstorm' about it. Lovely sweet guy he was, Jurgen.

    I quit Reality TV years ago but Bake Off is the one exception.
  • HYUFD said:

    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
    So I'm going to have to find £86,000 plus hotel costs plus the top-up to get somewhere that doesn't smell of wee. I believe from the new rules that you can top up yourself. So how much will I need? And what happens to your state pension when you go into a care home?
    The whole subject is extremely complex with many variables not least the question whether the NHS has a requirement to cover costs under CHC and the actual time in care

    My sisters terminal cancer diagnosis meant Wales NHS paid her 18 months in nursing care but as is the case in this and dementia care the pension is surrendered

    I do not know the answer short of huge tax increases and as the Labour spokesperson said this morning the rich will need to be taxed but could not explain just how that would work

    In the end you even run out of rich people to tax
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited November 2021
    SandraMc said:

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    Watching with my husband, we were both convinced all 4 would go through to the final as there was so little between them. My bet is that Chigs will win tonight as they keep going on about how he only started cooking during lockdown and it would make a good story (although Chigs did let slip once that that he was baking pre-lockdown but it was during lockdown that he became serious about it). But as I was wrong about all 4 going through to the final, I am probably wrong about Chigs being the winner.
    Exactly the same. My wife in particular thought they were going to do "and the person eliminated is ... no-one!"

    But no, Jurgen axed. Didn't you guys find it a bit fishy?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,709
    edited November 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
  • Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    edited November 2021

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

    As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).
  • Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

    He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.
    He really, really doesn't

    God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

    If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes
    I'm reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.

    So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.

    And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.

    But it leaves him really exposed now.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,000
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
    Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

    But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense
    Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    eek said:

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

    As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).
    Is herd immunity still a thing?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

    Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

    If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

    Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

    As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).
    Is herd immunity still a thing?
    Shall I just say, let's hope so
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Endillion said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    If Corbyn had won in 2019, no-one would be saying he was discredited. It would simply be taken as a sign that all the attempts to discredit him had either not worked, or backfired. Your point that elections are tests of credibility is absolutely correct - and it is primarily because of Johnson's results that we know he has it. By extension, if you view him negatively (as many on here do), it is therefore absolutely necessary to view his defeated past opponents as having been worse.
    I absolutely view Boris's last opponent as worse. The way I see the 2019 result is the poor beating the terrible. Insofar as leadership matters, which I think is sometimes overstated and sometimes understated.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,891
    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

    As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).
    Is herd immunity still a thing?
    Better believe it. Else we're all doomed (© Private Frazer).

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.
  • Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    You're mistaken, Hyfud.

    Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

    There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.
    Not necessarily disputing that, but do you have a link to a study? There are plenty of gotchas in hospital data analysis due, for example, to incorrect data. There will be people in the data who have been in hospital since 1 January 1800 (I think that's the value that gets filled in if the data are missing) and a few of those, if not accounted for, can obviously skew the mean to ridiculous extents.

    TLDR: Where was the figure from and did someone competent produce it?

    (I'm also reminded, on the other side of the data quality argument, of a famous incident of someone rubbishing NHS data because of the high number of obstetrics episodes for males - might even have been in published paper, letter to bmj or the like... People with more knowledge of the data pointed out that male babies have obstetrics episodes, just as much as female babies and half as much as mothers)
    Data is here:

    https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/find-data-and-publications/supplementary-information/2019-supplementary-information-files/mean-and-median-length-of-stay-of-hospital-inpatient-episodes

    I was of course picking the worst Trust, which, as noted, are all mental health Trusts and not as indicative of the wider NHS estate.

    You can also have a look at:

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/urgent-emergency-care/reducing-length-of-stay/reducing-long-term-stays/

  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,000

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    I wonder what Sadiq Khans approval rating will be at the end of his 2nd term
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.
    Really tricky. I kind of knew Jurgen wouldn't be in the final after what Hollywood said on Extra Slice a few weeks ago (each episode is judged stand alone, so past bakes have no influence, except weirdly in the final then they do seem to use it). Its clear that the four of them would probably have one previous years, so good have they been, so how do you get from 4 to 3? You can say its nitpicking from Hollywood, but splitting four very close results is really hard.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

    As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).
    Is herd immunity still a thing?
    It has always been and will always be a thing.

    The only question is *how* you acquire the immunity.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    There have already been 1.4 million covid deaths in Europe since 2020 but most of those were pre vaccination
  • isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
    Its midterms.

    Since when was a swing to the Opposition during midterm polling a unique experience Mike?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,603

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

    He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.
    He really, really doesn't

    God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

    If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes
    I’m intrigued by the concept that Boris Johnson is “gifted” and has a “powerful intelligence”.

    “Gifted” is normally a quality attributed to a child or young adult. There is something tragic about saying it of a man close to 60.

    The only evidence I’ve ever seen for him having a “powerful intelligence” is him narrowly losing the Greeks vs Romans debate to Professor Mary Beard. It was a surprisingly close call and not the Prof walkover you’d expect. (A truly intelligent debater would have whopped Beard, as it is blatantly obvious that the Greeks were more impressive.)

    Pericles and his ilk succumbed to the Plague of Athens. Johnson and his despicable ilk will be remembered as the Plague of England.
    In my experience, anyone who has ilk is a bad egg
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,387
    edited November 2021
    Selebian said:

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

    Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

    If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

    Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.
    That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited November 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland
    We're discussing the odds of Con FMs, tbf. Not something else.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited November 2021
    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.
    The problem for the SNP is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

    Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well. Then you would probably get a swingback in Scotland from SNP to Labour if No won again yes
  • On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

    And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

    What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,387
    mwadams said:

    Selebian said:

    Breaking on Sky

    The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

    That is horrific

    OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

    Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

    If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

    Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.
    That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.
    ETA: (The UK is at about 2/1000pop deaths from covid so far)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland
    We're discussing the odds of Con FMs, tbf. Not something else.
    Edit: and in any case what about British nationalism? The SCUP is by name and therefore definition a British nationalist party.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,709
    edited November 2021

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
    Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

    But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense
    Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
    Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.

    And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
    Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

    But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense
    Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
    Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-11 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.

    And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.
    Local government doesn't play by the same rules as national governments.

    Nationwide the SNP sit on the opposition benches, even if they run the local government in Holyrood.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited November 2021

    HYUFD said:

    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
    So I'm going to have to find £86,000 plus hotel costs plus the top-up to get somewhere that doesn't smell of wee. I believe from the new rules that you can top up yourself. So how much will I need? And what happens to your state pension when you go into a care home?
    Only if you need residential care, which most people won't, not if you only need at home domestic care.

    However that would still be better than now where you can lose all your assets to pay for residential care costs over £23,500 with no cap plus you also have to pay for hotel costs and top up costs too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,603

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

    And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

    What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?
    Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited November 2021

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    Some of that, for sure. But I think Brexit works even more powerfully the other way. Johnson has banked enormous credit with Leavers for breaking the impasse and driving it through. Not only that but the style in which he did it. The Brexit Wars in many ways were a war and via Johnson the Leave side achieved total victory. The forces of Remain were utterly crushed. That has to feel brilliant. Imagine how Hard Remainers would have felt if they'd managed to pull off another vote and then cancellation of the whole shebang. So, doing the 'empathize with others' thing, I definitely understand why it'll take an awful lot for his supporters in the Leave community to abandon him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited November 2021

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Farooq said:

    Endillion said:

    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.

    That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

    Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.
    Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
    So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead
    Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

    But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense
    Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
    Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.

    And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.
    Why is that a problem for BritNats? Labour are as BritNat as the Conservatives?
  • HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.
    The problem for the SNP is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

    Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well. Then you would probably get a swingback in Scotland from SNP to Labour if No won again yes
    At least we're getting to the nub of the matter, BJ won't allow indy ref II because BJ would lose indy ref II, a truth that even his most dewy eyed supporters know in their bones.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    I wonder what Sadiq Khans approval rating will be at the end of his 2nd term
    80% for "don't really care either way" I suspect. It's quite remarkable how the profile of the Mayor of London, and indeed the office of Mayor, has slipped so far below the radar.
  • HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland
    Ho ho, where have we heard that line before?

    Besides, the topic was the current price for Douglas Ross to be FM: 18/1. There is no market for next FM to be a Unionist. My guess is it would be about 14/1.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2021
    IanB2 said:

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

    And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

    What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?
    Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
    If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?

    How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland
    We're discussing the odds of Con FMs, tbf. Not something else.
    I do not care who runs Scotland as long as it is a Unionist.

    I don't live there I just want to keep the UK together, yes I would like Ross best of all but Sarwar would also be miles better than Sturgeon
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

    And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

    What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?
    There was massive RetConning of his history after BREXIT happened.

    According to some, the Olympics were an embarrassing failure, due to Boris etc.

    The truth is, that if he had flipped to Remain and Remain had won by 52%, then we would have headers by @Roger eulogising his noble brilliance. After yesterday's speech, at that...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568

    On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

    There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

    This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

    It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

    And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

    What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?
    Those of us that have been around the block more times than we care to remember... well... remember! ;)

  • Depends if you think normal polling rules apply at the moment. I’m not sure I do.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx 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.
    How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?
    Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

    Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

    Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.
    Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.
    The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.
    Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.
    The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

    Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well
    And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
    The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

    Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

    Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

    In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

    Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

    You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

    *Whispers*
    Is it cos he was German?
    I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.
    Really tricky. I kind of knew Jurgen wouldn't be in the final after what Hollywood said on Extra Slice a few weeks ago (each episode is judged stand alone, so past bakes have no influence, except weirdly in the final then they do seem to use it). Its clear that the four of them would probably have one previous years, so good have they been, so how do you get from 4 to 3? You can say its nitpicking from Hollywood, but splitting four very close results is really hard.
    Ah interesting. I didn't see that Extra Slice you refer to there. What did he say?
  • Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

    He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.
    He really, really doesn't

    God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

    If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes
    I'm reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.

    So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.

    And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.

    But it leaves him really exposed now.
    Also, I don't think many people would have an issue with a 'front man' if he had backup behind him. If he's going to wing speeches, then why isn't some smart bod there writing the speech for him, put a few Boris florishes in there, but have it properly targeted, focused and messaged.

    What you don't want is Boris making it up the day of the speech just throwing memes having a garbled mess with no real point of it. Which just about sums up his premiership right now.

    I don't think he knows his limitations. The most basic people expect of a government is professionalism and compentancy and thats severely lacking with Boris, and I don't think he's capable of forming it.
This discussion has been closed.