- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Is PB really critting me for being faintly optimistic?!
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Is PB really critting me for being faintly optimistic?!
Jeeez Denise
Probably the faintly bit is worrying. If you're not all in on something or other I'm sure we suspect you're up to something.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
"Johnsonian" implies some kind of ideology or principle, when it becomes evident with time that Johnson runs around like a headless chicken running from post to post. He has no ideology at all and nothing with which to draw from.
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
Unfair. He has a firm and unwavering ideology. He believes deeply and passionately in the greater power and glory of Boris Johnson.
As for Cummings, he has no brains, as he has amply demonstrated many times.
Alrighty, you got me there.
Hope you're well.
I'm fucking hanging through being grossly overworked trying to deal with many ongoing Covid related problems.
But otherwise, yes, I am well.
Good to know you're feeling a bit better too.
Thanks for the kind words of late ydoethur, they have brought me great comfort when I have been down. It has been nice to have people care.
Glad you're doing well and the COVID-related problems subside soon.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
"Johnsonian" implies some kind of ideology or principle, when it becomes evident with time that Johnson runs around like a headless chicken running from post to post. He has no ideology at all and nothing with which to draw from.
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
Unfair. He has a firm and unwavering ideology. He believes deeply and passionately in the greater power and glory of Boris Johnson.
As for Cummings, he has no brains, as he has amply demonstrated many times.
Alrighty, you got me there.
Hope you're well.
I'm fucking hanging through being grossly overworked trying to deal with many ongoing Covid related problems.
But otherwise, yes, I am well.
Good to know you're feeling a bit better too.
Thanks for the kind words of late ydoethur, they have brought me great comfort when I have been down. It has been nice to have people care.
Glad you're doing well and the COVID-related problems subside soon.
You're welcome. It's good to know they were of some use.
I rather suspect the Covid related issues I am having in education will be resolved by my switching careers, or going very part time so I can pursue other ventures. But we will see.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Real refugee: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country PDQ!" Non-refugee: "I WANT to get to the UK by any means!"
Yes, I think you have said that before. Can we not see this as a spectrum, on which there are some people who need to get out of their own country ASAP but also can place the possible destination countries in some sort of order of preference?
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.
Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills taking much notice of government wittering. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.
But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.
Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.
Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
That’s very shortsighted my friend
Overseas aid isn’t charity, it’s geopolitics.
The best way to reduce migration from Africa to Europe, for example, is to invest in the Sahel. Limit the supply of desperate people trying to come to squat on your doorstep as it were
Yes, I see that migration from North Africa has fallen noticeably since we started giving 0.7% of GDP ten years ago.
If we want to stop migration that 0.7% would be much better spent on speeding up the asylum system and better border enforcement.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.
Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.
Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen
Covid Rule 1
The worst case scenario is a variant that is completely nullified by Sinovax but interacts with mrna immunity in a very nasty way.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.
Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.
Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen
Covid Rule 1
The worst case scenario is a variant that is completely nullified by Sinovax but interacts with mrna immunity in a very nasty way.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.
But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.
Many of us Tories are getting pretty ashamed of Boris CHB. Admittedly if we'd known then what we know now I'd doubt we'd have gone with Swinson.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Why is it morally bankrupt to allow people to contribute to foreign aid to the extent that they want to rather than forcing them to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target, and doing so clearly against their democratic will into the bargain? I would say that that's the morally bankrupt position.
Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.
But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.
Many of us Tories are getting pretty ashamed of Boris CHB. Admittedly if we'd known then what we know now I'd doubt we'd have gone with Swinson.
Hi Omnium, hope you are too keeping well. Thank you for your kind words of late.
I always thought Johnson would be a disastrous PM and it is a shame that a party that has produced leaders like Churchill and Thatcher, has been reduced to this.
Swinson was one of my few good calls of GE19, I said she would be awful and she was.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
The "woke" might be the loudest but they are not the majority of the left by any way, just as the hang them all crowd on Twitter don't represent the right.
I continue to be of the view that most people sit in the centre, hence why Labour has now recovered
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Why is it morally bankrupt to allow people to contribute to foreign aid to the extent that they want to rather than forcing them to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target, and doing so clearly against their democratic will into the bargain? I would say that that's the morally bankrupt position.
Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.
Leaving aside for a moment the specifics of the foreign aid budget, isn't an awful lot of spending 'forcing [people] to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target'?
If we're lucky there's some budget lines in a manifesto, but plenty won't be covered and a lot of increases or decreases will be pretty arbitrary as compared to any public interest in specifics.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.
Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.
Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen
Covid Rule 1
The worst case scenario is a variant that is completely nullified by Sinovax but interacts with mrna immunity in a very nasty way.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.
I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.
I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.
But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.
Many of us Tories are getting pretty ashamed of Boris CHB. Admittedly if we'd known then what we know now I'd doubt we'd have gone with Swinson.
Hi Omnium, hope you are too keeping well. Thank you for your kind words of late.
I always thought Johnson would be a disastrous PM and it is a shame that a party that has produced leaders like Churchill and Thatcher, has been reduced to this.
Swinson was one of my few good calls of GE19, I said she would be awful and she was.
He's looking pretty disaterous. His one good thing though is we did get through the Brexit abyss. I'm a Tory member and would have much preferred Hunt, but I could just see us in limbo land.
Nonetheless he's in real trouble. When 100% voting record Tories like me are massively pissed off then he's hardly going to be in a good place with his MPs. If you told me he's suddenly developed a woo-joo habit that was sending him mad I'd not dismiss it (woo-joo just being invented).
A Tory government that should be strong is falling apart, albeit under tricky external circumstances. I know it flies against everyone else's wisdom, but I think Patel is doing well.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.
I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.
I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.
Scotland tho
Labour can't easily win without Scotland, and Scotland is also a terrible drag for then, UK-wide
I'm gonna predict Peak Starmer in about a year. Then Labour will fall back again, badly, as the Woke Nazis and the open borders twats get to work on destroying Labour all over again. The Left is diseased and pathetic. Look at Biden/The Dems
The Tories will win in 2023/4, even tho they do not remotely deserve to do so
No it isn't, when you click through its the same GP. The UK media appear to only have the phone number of this lady. DW news have had a number of interesting experts on.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Why is it morally bankrupt to allow people to contribute to foreign aid to the extent that they want to rather than forcing them to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target, and doing so clearly against their democratic will into the bargain? I would say that that's the morally bankrupt position.
Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.
Why not do the same with the Armed Forces, so that pacifists are not forced to fund an army against their will?
Or why should misogynists fund female education against their will?
Or eco-warriors fund new roads - against their will?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
You seem happy enough to shag them, mind.
And say weird things about under 20s like what nice tits they have etc, just a weirdo all round
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.
I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.
I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.
I'm not sure I agree that Johnson's never been popular. He clearly has been, in many quite surprising quarters. He has a way of cutting through that few other politicians can match.
But what he definitely also is is Marmite. Those who see through the schtick absolutely hate him for his many and egregious faults.
I would suggest the key change is that recent events have turned quite a few of the former category into the latter. Not by any means all, but enough to make a difference.
That also may make it very hard for him to win back the lost support - although a new leader may be able to, but presumably wouldn't have that 'cut through' to start with.
Starmer, equally, people didn't seem to have any strong views about, possibly because he's been so overshadowed by events. So while they didn't like him, they see no reason to hate him and are willing to consider him.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.
I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.
I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.
I'm not sure I agree that Johnson's never been popular. He clearly has been, in many quite surprising quarters. He has a way of cutting through that few other politicians can match.
But what he definitely also is is Marmite. Those who see through the schtick absolutely hate him for his many and egregious faults.
I would suggest the key change is that recent events have turned quite a few of the former category into the latter. Not by any means all, but enough to make a difference.
That also may make it very hard for him to win back the lost support - although a new leader may be able to, but presumably wouldn't have that 'cut through' to start with.
Starmer, equally, people didn't seem to have any strong views about, possibly because he's been so overshadowed by events. So while they didn't like him, they see no reason to hate him and are willing to consider him.
Some here are convinced Starmer is hated and is as unpopular as Corbyn, this has clearly never been the case.
It cannot just be Johnson going down, Starmer's ratings are also way up
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The "woke" might be the loudest but they are not the majority of the left by any way, just as the hang them all crowd on Twitter don't represent the right.
I continue to be of the view that most people sit in the centre, hence why Labour has now recovered
Let us never forget @CorrectHorseBattery that "The Woke" as an entity is entirely a self-serving invention of right-wingers, to give themselves something to rail against.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Why is it morally bankrupt to allow people to contribute to foreign aid to the extent that they want to rather than forcing them to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target, and doing so clearly against their democratic will into the bargain? I would say that that's the morally bankrupt position.
Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.
Why not do the same with the Armed Forces, so that pacifists are not forced to fund an army against their will?
Or why should misogynists fund female education against their will?
Or eco-warriors fund new roads - against their will?
It's a continuing theme.
1) Democracy is awesome. The people are sovereign. Get rid of all impediments to democracy. Abolish the House of Lords etc 2) No, this policy is sacred. Too sacred for the Head Count Scum to touch. It is sacred.
Until the slight disconnect between 1 & 2 is recognised, many people will see democracy as a rigged game.
"Keep the court and coinage. Let the rabble have the rest."
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
You seem happy enough to shag them, mind.
A retribution ghastly enough to satisfy anyone you would think.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.
But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.
The likely options for GE2019 was one of four outcomes. 1. massive majority Johnson, 2, majority Johnson, 3, minority Johnson or 4, minority Corbyn. All were painful but you opted for a wings-clipped, strait-jacketed Corbyn which was one of the two least worst options.
When Johnson has finished toying with us I suspect we will be demanding an apology from those who gave him a humongous majority.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
That sounds like a plot from the US House of Cards.
I think a lot of posters fail to understand how popular Boris is still with the former Labour red wall voters - He can still do no wrong because of Brexit.He is given the benefit of any doubt on any thing - these voters agree he is a "buffoon" but he's ours buffoon. If Boris is removed from the Conservative party that's when these votes - mine included will be up for grabs The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many "“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
If you actually know the worlds opinion is wrong you stay quiet though. Borrow as much as you can, and make a killing.
PS and the last thing you do is make it look as if you knew.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
The numerous mutations theory has a fair grounding in science, there's lots of research going into the apparent extinction of it in Japan which is thought to be for this reason.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
[Citation needed] on Zerohedge not falling for blatantly bogus nonsense.
Its worse than Guido. Its the worst elements of Guido combined with Russian disinformation.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
Is there a media outlet in the UK the South African GP hasn't been on over the past 24hrs? Repeating the same, well I haven't seen any seriously ill people (well you are a GP) and I phoned a mate in a hospital and they don't have any at the moment.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
I actually think it is a fair comparison - both sell a right libertarian anarchist view of the world, with some wacky ideas thrown in.
Zerohedge always falls for bollocks - it's just you can see this one. They went for the whole "proven reserves" nonsense about "rare earths" a while back, for instance.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
I’m not criticising the lady doctor - her experience is her experience. It’s valid for her to share it. It’s the bizarre way the report is written: the guy is clearly a crank.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
Is there a media outlet in the UK the South African GP hasn't been on over the past 24hrs? Repeating the same, well I haven't seen any seriously ill people (well you are a GP) and I phoned a mate in a hospital and they don't have any at the moment.
I think a lot of posters fail to understand how popular Boris is still with the former Labour red wall voters - He can still do no wrong because of Brexit.He is given the benefit of any doubt on any thing - these voters agree he is a "buffoon" but he's ours buffoon. If Boris is removed from the Conservative party that's when these votes - mine included will be up for grabs The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many "“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."
Spot on Vino about Boris and his red wall popularity.
SKS is a disaster with those voters. Offers them nothing and is THE face of remain.
Labour couldn't have a worse leader in that respect for winning back the marginal red wall seats.
Paging @ydoethur - useless Covid theatre begins to creep back into schools...
COVID-19: Pupils in years 7 and above should wear face masks in communal areas, government tells schools
The advice, which is also in place for visitors and staff at schools and colleges in England, is part of measures to slow the spread of the Omicron variant, according to the Department for Education.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
That sounds like a plot from the US House of Cards.
“The politics of Arron Sorkin” was how the article describes it. As for imminent vacancy, some liberal chap who is 83 and fancies retirement apparently.
How would this impact next VEEP market? Would it make Robert’s Indianan mayor a shoe in?
Paging @ydoethur - useless Covid theatre begins to creep back into schools...
COVID-19: Pupils in years 7 and above should wear face masks in communal areas, government tells schools
The advice, which is also in place for visitors and staff at schools and colleges in England, is part of measures to slow the spread of the Omicron variant, according to the Department for Education.
I think a lot of posters fail to understand how popular Boris is still with the former Labour red wall voters - He can still do no wrong because of Brexit.He is given the benefit of any doubt on any thing - these voters agree he is a "buffoon" but he's ours buffoon. If Boris is removed from the Conservative party that's when these votes - mine included will be up for grabs The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many "“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."
Spot on Vino about Boris and his red wall popularity.
SKS is a disaster with those voters. Offers them nothing and is THE face of remain.
Labour couldn't have a worse leader in that respect for winning back the marginal red wall seats.
Boris needs to be able to demonstrate results come the next election.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
Is there a SCOTUS vacancy imminent?
And the Senate will simply vote to appoint the VP to the Court? With the non-existent Democrat majority?
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.
Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
Is there a media outlet in the UK the South African GP hasn't been on over the past 24hrs? Repeating the same, well I haven't seen any seriously ill people (well you are a GP) and I phoned a mate in a hospital and they don't have any at the moment.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
Is there a SCOTUS vacancy imminent?
As many as he wants prior to mid terms. After that no.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
The numerous mutations theory has a fair grounding in science, there's lots of research going into the apparent extinction of it in Japan which is thought to be for this reason.
Sure, it’s the bizarre style of the reporting I was referring to, not the anecdote from the doctor.
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
Is there a SCOTUS vacancy imminent?
And the Senate will simply vote to appoint the VP to the Court? With the non-existent Democrat majority?
That’s the dramatic bit. At 50-50 the Vice President has casting vote on the confirmation process.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
Total bollocks* as usual. You cannot even define "Woke" without entering a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
Paging @ydoethur - useless Covid theatre begins to creep back into schools...
COVID-19: Pupils in years 7 and above should wear face masks in communal areas, government tells schools
The advice, which is also in place for visitors and staff at schools and colleges in England, is part of measures to slow the spread of the Omicron variant, according to the Department for Education.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
Yes. But it’s 20 patients out of presumably several thousand covid patients she’s seen in the last 2 years nearly.
I mean, in a serious Ohmigodwereallgoingtodie covid scenario you get twitter videos of corpses piling up in the street. Not seeing any of that shit just now.
I think a lot of posters fail to understand how popular Boris is still with the former Labour red wall voters - He can still do no wrong because of Brexit.He is given the benefit of any doubt on any thing - these voters agree he is a "buffoon" but he's ours buffoon. If Boris is removed from the Conservative party that's when these votes - mine included will be up for grabs The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many "“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."
Yes, I think there's a lot of truth in that post.
Personally I cannot stand Johnson but I do sense that a number of people rate him despite or because of the fact that he's not a 'normal' politician.
Regarding the Channel immigration issue, I agree the black ecomony* is a draw. To be fair though, the Tories have only had 11 years in power to resolve this problem, so I suspect it's all Gordon Brown's fault.
(*About which ironically, which we used to sneer at southern Europeans)
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
Yes. But it’s 20 patients out of presumably several thousand covid patients she’s seen in the last 2 years nearly.
GPs don't generally see COVID patients for the obvious reasons, and especially not serious cases. Its a self selecting group, a number of people have come not really knowing whats wrong with them, they have been found to have the new COVID strain....but that tells you nothing about all those really and obviously sick with COVID, who will be following advice to isolate and then if they go downhill to A&E.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Yes, I’m struggling with that too. My comment above related to the reporting of her testimony on some niche site for cranks called Zero Hedge. I have no problem with her making the testimony nor it being widely used: she is at the frontline.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
It's not about belief.
It's about extrapolating from one persons experience of the health case system.
For example, a GP may well not see many serious cases of any kind of COVID - the serious ones will be heading to hospital, after all.
Back in 1912 the idea of icebergs being dangerous to big ships was laughed at - nearly no-one reported problems with them. Then someone noticed the yearly "surge" in ships vanishing without trace.....
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
Sure, but that doesn’t make the interview invalid.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
Yes. But it’s 20 patients out of presumably several thousand covid patients she’s seen in the last 2 years nearly.
GPs don't generally see COVID patients for the obvious reasons, and especially not serious cases.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.
I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.
I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.
I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.
I'm not sure I agree that Johnson's never been popular. He clearly has been, in many quite surprising quarters. He has a way of cutting through that few other politicians can match.
But what he definitely also is is Marmite. Those who see through the schtick absolutely hate him for his many and egregious faults.
I would suggest the key change is that recent events have turned quite a few of the former category into the latter. Not by any means all, but enough to make a difference.
That also may make it very hard for him to win back the lost support - although a new leader may be able to, but presumably wouldn't have that 'cut through' to start with.
Starmer, equally, people didn't seem to have any strong views about, possibly because he's been so overshadowed by events. So while they didn't like him, they see no reason to hate him and are willing to consider him.
Some here are convinced Starmer is hated and is as unpopular as Corbyn, this has clearly never been the case.
It cannot just be Johnson going down, Starmer's ratings are also way up
Remember Government's win or lose elections. Oppositions seldom win them.
Most of the news stories from the last couple of weeks are froth. Paterson, Cox, Peppa Pig and so on. They alone won't lose Johnson an election. He will likely as not recover in the polls when the noise dies down.
However, when voters start hurting in their pockets, Paterson, Cox and Peppa Pig will come to mind. That is when these memories become more than just froth. That is when Johnson gets punished. If the economy rolls along nicely the bad news stories won't matter.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
"Totally anecdotal." Idiot. You think a GP can't tell how many people are how ill cos its not a randomised double blinded prospective study wankathon?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
I wish this were true, but it is not.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
Interestingly I found this on the previous thread. Dura Ace presumably describing people you DO like respect and get on with......
"......I remember the exact moment I knew the game was up for Corbyn's Corduroy Revolution. I was watching the darts and noticed that somebody in the audience was holding up a sign that said DIANE ABBOTT FOR SCOREKEEPER.
The live audience at a darts match aren't so much low information voters as zero information voters; thick as fuck leavers who eat gravy on toast for dinner and have spiders tattooed on their necks. Once even those people are laughing at you it's over........."
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
Sure, but that doesn’t make the interview invalid.
IMO it does, because the sample size is too small and too self-selecting, which the media are then broadcasting a message that people will be reading as this is definitely less bad. Where are for instance the likes of experts in the actual science of viruses that DW have had on that have looked at the data and very concerned? Why are all major governments advised by their egg heads shitting themselves, Israel totally closing their borders etc.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
There have been two to date. Before and after 12/12/19. I am not hoping for more
I know Wikipedia believes this, but I am not sure this is correct. My understanding and in this the Institute for Government would appear to agree with me, is that an incumbent PM who wins a general election continues to lead the same government. Only if there is a break of service with a different PM do you have 'first and second governments' i.e. only Churchill and Wilson since the war (and there is some dispute about whether Churchill was PM twice or three times).
So there has been one Johnson government.
It's still one too many of course, and doesn't really address the substantive point.
Point of (dis)Order - Think your point re: continuity under same PM is generally valid.
Your caveat re: Churchill is based on fact that he first became PM in 1940 as leader of the wartime coalition including the Labour and Liberal parties, that superseded the previous National government, a Conservative-dominated quasi-coalition at best) under Chamberlain. AND that Churchill remained PM after Labour and Liberals left the coalition in 1945 following the German surrender, as leader for a few weeks of a caretaker administration of Tories (plus a few associated Liberal National and National Labour as pre-1940).
By this reckoning, Churchill's third and final administration began with Conservative victory in 1951 general election, and continued until his resignation and replacement by Eden in 1955.
NOTE that a similar situation occurred during World War I when the Liberal government under Herbert Asquith was superseded in 1915 by the first WWI Liberal-Conservative coalition; Asquith remained PM but the power dynamic had shifted substantially. Clearly these are separate administrations under the same PM.
At the end of 1916, when Asquith was bounced from No. 10, left the govt along with many Liberals, and and replaced by a newly-configured coalition under Lloyd George. In 1918 after the Armistice, Lloyd George was returned at the "Coupon election" as leader of this coalition by a landslide. BUT it's worth noting (at least in passing) that their was some reworking of the coalition, thanks to the relative success of coalition Tories versus coaltion Liberals lucky enough to snag one of the "coupons" representing express recognition as a government-endorsed candidate.
Another example occurred in 1931 when the Labour administration of Ramsey Macdonald was replaced by the National government under Macdonald, supported by most Conservatives and Liberals, but opposed by the majority of Labour ministers, MPs and members. Again, two very different administrations under the same PM. This same basic government last until 1940 under three successive prime ministers - Macdonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain - with little change arguably until the outbreak of WWII in 1939, when Churchill & Eden re-entered the cabinet.
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Yes, I’m struggling with that too. My comment above related to the reporting of her testimony on some niche site for cranks called Zero Hedge. I have no problem with her making the testimony nor it being widely used: she is at the frontline.
She's not at the fucking frontline. She is one GP albeit with an honorary position. What's more, she is being serially misquoted by the chronically fearful and nervous, who want to believe everything is AOK
Here's the source article for "everything is mild and fine"
"She said, in total, about two dozen of her patients have tested positive for Covid-19 with symptoms of the new variant. They were mostly healthy men who turned up “feeling so tired”. About half of them were unvaccinated."
Two Dozen
TWO DOZEN
And then:
"Dr Coetzee, who was briefing other African medical associations on Saturday, made clear her patients were all healthy and she was worried the new variant could still hit older people – with co-morbidities such as diabetes or heart disease – much harder.
“What we have to worry about now is that when older, unvaccinated people are infected with the new variant, and if they are not vaccinated, we are going to see many people with a severe [form of the] disease,” she said."
I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.
Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.
"Totally anecdotal." Idiot. You think a GP can't tell how many people are how ill cos its not a randomised double blinded prospective study wankathon?
It is anecdotal and self selecting. People only go to their GP with mild illnesses. You don't phone your GP when you are having a heart attack. Anybody suffering serious COVID, whatever variant, won't be going near a GP.
You could actually look at this the other way around, as worse....the people she has seen would normally be totally asymptotic.....
Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.
Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.
Is there a SCOTUS vacancy imminent?
As many as he wants prior to mid terms. After that no.
I think increasing the number of SCOTUS judges is a slippery slope step. Effectively it removes the judicial check on the legislative and executive branches when the POTUS and Congress are in the hands of one party, since a few friendly judges could be added every time to tip the balance.
Comments
Glad you're doing well and the COVID-related problems subside soon.
I rather suspect the Covid related issues I am having in education will be resolved by my switching careers, or going very part time so I can pursue other ventures. But we will see.
OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty
It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)
It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta
It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity
That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries
I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly
If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.
Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills taking much notice of government wittering. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.
But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.
Covid Rule 1
If we want to stop migration that 0.7% would be much better spent on speeding up the asylum system and better border enforcement.
One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.
Probably coming in winter '22
PS We being Labour or Tory
Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.
I always thought Johnson would be a disastrous PM and it is a shame that a party that has produced leaders like Churchill and Thatcher, has been reduced to this.
Swinson was one of my few good calls of GE19, I said she would be awful and she was.
The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way
I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do
So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?
I continue to be of the view that most people sit in the centre, hence why Labour has now recovered
If we're lucky there's some budget lines in a manifesto, but plenty won't be covered and a lot of increases or decreases will be pretty arbitrary as compared to any public interest in specifics.
What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.
In 3 weeks time we'll see 80k cases in a day. Bozo will announce that we should WFH, just as everyone is breaking up for their Christmas holidays.
Masks will be here until Easter.
In January some bunch of skiers will be moaning when they get caught out by travel restrictions.
Labour will 'win' the locals in May.
And The Toon will be relegated.
I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.
I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.
"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701
I’m unconvinced on any more restrictions in the Uk. I don’t think the hospital numbers will be close to justifying it, regardless of case numbers.
Nonetheless he's in real trouble. When 100% voting record Tories like me are massively pissed off then he's hardly going to be in a good place with his MPs. If you told me he's suddenly developed a woo-joo habit that was sending him mad I'd not dismiss it (woo-joo just being invented).
A Tory government that should be strong is falling apart, albeit under tricky external circumstances. I know it flies against everyone else's wisdom, but I think Patel is doing well.
Labour can't easily win without Scotland, and Scotland is also a terrible drag for then, UK-wide
I'm gonna predict Peak Starmer in about a year. Then Labour will fall back again, badly, as the Woke Nazis and the open borders twats get to work on destroying Labour all over again. The Left is diseased and pathetic. Look at Biden/The Dems
The Tories will win in 2023/4, even tho they do not remotely deserve to do so
Or why should misogynists fund female education against their will?
Or eco-warriors fund new roads - against their will?
But what he definitely also is is Marmite. Those who see through the schtick absolutely hate him for his many and egregious faults.
I would suggest the key change is that recent events have turned quite a few of the former category into the latter. Not by any means all, but enough to make a difference.
That also may make it very hard for him to win back the lost support - although a new leader may be able to, but presumably wouldn't have that 'cut through' to start with.
Starmer, equally, people didn't seem to have any strong views about, possibly because he's been so overshadowed by events. So while they didn't like him, they see no reason to hate him and are willing to consider him.
It cannot just be Johnson going down, Starmer's ratings are also way up
This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024
1) Democracy is awesome. The people are sovereign. Get rid of all impediments to democracy. Abolish the House of Lords etc
2) No, this policy is sacred. Too sacred for the Head Count Scum to touch. It is sacred.
Until the slight disconnect between 1 & 2 is recognised, many people will see democracy as a rigged game.
"Keep the court and coinage. Let the rabble have the rest."
I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.
When Johnson has finished toying with us I suspect we will be demanding an apology from those who gave him a humongous majority.
Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?
The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many
"“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."
PS and the last thing you do is make it look as if you knew.
Its worse than Guido. Its the worst elements of Guido combined with Russian disinformation.
Zerohedge always falls for bollocks - it's just you can see this one. They went for the whole "proven reserves" nonsense about "rare earths" a while back, for instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-59450988
SKS is a disaster with those voters. Offers them nothing and is THE face of remain.
Labour couldn't have a worse leader in that respect for winning back the marginal red wall seats.
COVID-19: Pupils in years 7 and above should wear face masks in communal areas, government tells schools
The advice, which is also in place for visitors and staff at schools and colleges in England, is part of measures to slow the spread of the Omicron variant, according to the Department for Education.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-schools-in-england-told-pupils-in-years-7-and-above-should-wear-face-masks-in-communal-areas-12481687
How would this impact next VEEP market? Would it make Robert’s Indianan mayor a shoe in?
Leading in polls and more popular than Johnson, still let's get Corbyn back and give the Tories another landslide
*other gender anatomy equally valid.
Who said owt about get Corbyn back?
Personally I cannot stand Johnson but I do sense that a number of people rate him despite or because of the fact that he's not a 'normal' politician.
Regarding the Channel immigration issue, I agree the black ecomony* is a draw. To be fair though, the Tories have only had 11 years in power to resolve this problem, so I suspect it's all Gordon Brown's fault.
(*About which ironically, which we used to sneer at southern Europeans)
It's about extrapolating from one persons experience of the health case system.
For example, a GP may well not see many serious cases of any kind of COVID - the serious ones will be heading to hospital, after all.
Back in 1912 the idea of icebergs being dangerous to big ships was laughed at - nearly no-one reported problems with them. Then someone noticed the yearly "surge" in ships vanishing without trace.....
And, of course, this famous picture
Most of the news stories from the last couple of weeks are froth. Paterson, Cox, Peppa Pig and so on. They alone won't lose Johnson an election. He will likely as not recover in the polls when the noise dies down.
However, when voters start hurting in their pockets, Paterson, Cox and Peppa Pig will come to mind. That is when these memories become more than just froth. That is when Johnson gets punished. If the economy rolls along nicely the bad news stories won't matter.
"......I remember the exact moment I knew the game was up for Corbyn's Corduroy Revolution. I was watching the darts and noticed that somebody in the audience was holding up a sign that said DIANE ABBOTT FOR SCOREKEEPER.
The live audience at a darts match aren't so much low information voters as zero information voters; thick as fuck leavers who eat gravy on toast for dinner and have spiders tattooed on their necks. Once even those people are laughing at you it's over........."
He ought to write for a living........
Your caveat re: Churchill is based on fact that he first became PM in 1940 as leader of the wartime coalition including the Labour and Liberal parties, that superseded the previous National government, a Conservative-dominated quasi-coalition at best) under Chamberlain. AND that Churchill remained PM after Labour and Liberals left the coalition in 1945 following the German surrender, as leader for a few weeks of a caretaker administration of Tories (plus a few associated Liberal National and National Labour as pre-1940).
By this reckoning, Churchill's third and final administration began with Conservative victory in 1951 general election, and continued until his resignation and replacement by Eden in 1955.
NOTE that a similar situation occurred during World War I when the Liberal government under Herbert Asquith was superseded in 1915 by the first WWI Liberal-Conservative coalition; Asquith remained PM but the power dynamic had shifted substantially. Clearly these are separate administrations under the same PM.
At the end of 1916, when Asquith was bounced from No. 10, left the govt along with many Liberals, and and replaced by a newly-configured coalition under Lloyd George. In 1918 after the Armistice, Lloyd George was returned at the "Coupon election" as leader of this coalition by a landslide. BUT it's worth noting (at least in passing) that their was some reworking of the coalition, thanks to the relative success of coalition Tories versus coaltion Liberals lucky enough to snag one of the "coupons" representing express recognition as a government-endorsed candidate.
Another example occurred in 1931 when the Labour administration of Ramsey Macdonald was replaced by the National government under Macdonald, supported by most Conservatives and Liberals, but opposed by the majority of Labour ministers, MPs and members. Again, two very different administrations under the same PM. This same basic government last until 1940 under three successive prime ministers - Macdonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain - with little change arguably until the outbreak of WWII in 1939, when Churchill & Eden re-entered the cabinet.
Here's the source article for "everything is mild and fine"
"She said, in total, about two dozen of her patients have tested positive for Covid-19 with symptoms of the new variant. They were mostly healthy men who turned up “feeling so tired”. About half of them were unvaccinated."
Two Dozen
TWO DOZEN
And then:
"Dr Coetzee, who was briefing other African medical associations on Saturday, made clear her patients were all healthy and she was worried the new variant could still hit older people – with co-morbidities such as diabetes or heart disease – much harder.
“What we have to worry about now is that when older, unvaccinated people are infected with the new variant, and if they are not vaccinated, we are going to see many people with a severe [form of the] disease,” she said."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/south-african-doctor-raised-alarm-omicron-variant-says-symptoms/
You could actually look at this the other way around, as worse....the people she has seen would normally be totally asymptotic.....