Please will you now stop with your anti-science nonsense? Note that this is NOT a call for a particular policy. There are still valid schools of thought that say "masks work, but we shouldn't mandate them". But anyone who says masks don't work is a liar.
Only looked at the first link so far but you've misunderstood the question it seems. The question isn't whether masks work in a controlled environment, of course they do!
The question is whether mask mandates work over the long term post vaccines. That I dispute.
Your first link is out of date and starts from a false premise. It refers to a shortage in medical grade masks, so advocates for cloth masks. That made sense last year pre-vaccines and while such a shortage existed so I agreed with it then.
Facts have changed since then though, it may have been true early in the pandemic, but now we have vaccines and we do not have a shortage of medical grade masks. If you want a medical grade mask you can get one from Amazon or elsewhere very easily.
Considering my proposal is that instead of pushing cloth masks on those who don't want one we'd be better off educating those who are worried to ditch their cloth masks and to wear a decent medical grade one instead, like Foxy for instance does at the football ... I don't consider an article written pre vaccines on the false premise that medical masks are in short supply as remotely relevant.
What do we think has been pixelated from the bottom centre of the photo, between the two clocks? I was assuming it was another clock but, pixelated for what reason?
It's a person whose identity is being protected
Whose identity is now known to everyone in Downing Street by now.
What do we think has been pixelated from the bottom centre of the photo, between the two clocks? I was assuming it was another clock but, pixelated for what reason?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h I wonder whether the aides allegedly "spooked" by the vaxx effectiveness data grasp that only of order 22% of adults are in the "only 2 doses & no infection" category?
On the face of it, a "virtual quiz" doesn't exactly sound like a terrible breach of Covid regulations.
Indeed. Now I do not like Boris Johnson at all, and I really wish he would go, but listening to Keir this morning I really thought that he was over-egging it.
Watching Zahawi on Marr, he clearly doesn’t understand other factors on exponential growth. He suggests 1 million cases by the end of the month means 2 million three days later, then 4 three days after that. Keep going, we’re all dead by the 30th jan. Yes exponential rise at first, but it ALWAYS slows. Is he spinning a line to get the message across, or does he believe what he is saying/has been told?
Have we ever seen exponential growth for more than about 2 weeks? There are always a lot of barriers to growth in the real world that slow things. Always.
Amoeba reproduce by doubling every couple of minutes. In just a day they'll occupy all known space.
Please will you now stop with your anti-science nonsense? Note that this is NOT a call for a particular policy. There are still valid schools of thought that say "masks work, but we shouldn't mandate them". But anyone who says masks don't work is a liar.
He will not stop. He is happy for other people's wives and daughters to die so that he can protect "liberty" for him, his wife and his daughter.
Tis the most noble of sacrifices - some of you are going to die, martyrs of course to the freedom I shall provide...
I don't really see that, because to the extent I feel like saying Sod it, let it rip, I am not regarding myself as less at risk than anyone else. Why would I think I was?
The wallpaper nonsense is every bit as ridiculous as the parties. Boris paid for his publicly owned flat to be redecorated according to his wife's taste! Even worse, someone else, not the public purse, paid for it for him in the first place and might well have done so permanently if it had not come out! Even worse, the right forms were not filled in!!
You don't think there is a problem with the Prime Minister seeking to sell himself to the highest bidder?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Our Prime Minister can be bought. He is desperate to be bought. It should be an embarrassment as well as an outrage.
The money that Lord Brownlow gives the Tory party makes this petty cash. It is absurd to suggest that this was what gave him influence.
The wallpaper nonsense is every bit as ridiculous as the parties. Boris paid for his publicly owned flat to be redecorated according to his wife's taste! Even worse, someone else, not the public purse, paid for it for him in the first place and might well have done so permanently if it had not come out! Even worse, the right forms were not filled in!!
You don't think there is a problem with the Prime Minister seeking to sell himself to the highest bidder?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Our Prime Minister can be bought. He is desperate to be bought. It should be an embarrassment as well as an outrage.
What's he sold to Lord Brownlow?
He's already a CVO. I really wouldn't be terribly upset if he became a KCVO.
A GCVO would just be a step too far though.
Yeah, a G without new sofas would be starting to look like taking the piss
Watching Zahawi on Marr, he clearly doesn’t understand other factors on exponential growth. He suggests 1 million cases by the end of the month means 2 million three days later, then 4 three days after that. Keep going, we’re all dead by the 30th jan. Yes exponential rise at first, but it ALWAYS slows. Is he spinning a line to get the message across, or does he believe what he is saying/has been told?
Have we ever seen exponential growth for more than about 2 weeks? There are always a lot of barriers to growth in the real world that slow things. Always.
Amoeba reproduce by doubling every couple of minutes. In just a day they'll occupy all known space.
And we are wasting this final day on PB? When we have undrunk champagne? Madness.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
I'm interested to know what your alternative solution - one that keeps the hospitals afloat without causing the economy to implode - looks like. Is it permanent lockdown, never to be lifted for the rest of human history? After all, lighter touch restrictions have had no dramatic effect, and may have done no good at all. Looking at the current situation and that over the last few months, Scotland is currently doing a bit better than England in terms of caseload but the Scottish Government is in at least as much of a panic about Omicron as the one down in London. Wales and Northern Ireland have also been more cautious since July and have actually done worse.
This is your (wholly understandable) frustration with/disdain for Boris Johnson and all his works speaking again. All sound and fury, but no suggestion of any practical alternative to trying our best to live with the virus rather than under its yoke.
Yes, and the troops are getting mutinous, or at least those who haven't deserted already. I am increasingly getting this sort of vibe from our nurses and junior doctors, not least from Mrs Foxy:
I'm also interested to know what the fall back position is if hospitals are either unwilling or unable to treat another tsunami of Covid patients. Who gets prioritised for euthanasia - the oldest and most clinically vulnerable, or those who could've chosen to be vaccinated but refused? If your colleagues are preparing either for a mass walkout or an impossibly large wave of admissions then you must, presumably, have discussed what comes next?
This is not an attempt to have a pop at you or make my own moral accusations BTW. We are all perfectly well aware, from the litany of stories we've heard throughout the pandemic, not just about elective treatment backlogs but of cancer and other serious and very urgent surgeries being cancelled for lack of recovery capacity in critical care, that the NHS already condemns non-Covid patients to permanent disability and death to free up room for Covid cases - it's just that people don't want to think about it. Sorting the Covid patients into priority order and denying some of them necessary treatment is no different.
The wallpaper nonsense is every bit as ridiculous as the parties. Boris paid for his publicly owned flat to be redecorated according to his wife's taste! Even worse, someone else, not the public purse, paid for it for him in the first place and might well have done so permanently if it had not come out! Even worse, the right forms were not filled in!!
You don't think there is a problem with the Prime Minister seeking to sell himself to the highest bidder?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Our Prime Minister can be bought. He is desperate to be bought. It should be an embarrassment as well as an outrage.
The money that Lord Brownlow gives the Tory party makes this petty cash. It is absurd to suggest that this was what gave him influence.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
As illustration there are currently 13,855 in French hospital with covid:
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
It may be true now, but if so it's a change and a bad one.
Go back to the Wilson/Thatcher/Blair/Major years, and governments at least paid lip service to the idea that they governed in the interest of everyone.
They might have disagreed about exactly what that interest was, and how to achieve it, and it didn't always happen, but it was acknowledged as desirable.
If we have moved to the job of a party being to collect together 45%, superserve them and screw everyone else, that's a Bad Thing.
My gut instinct is this will also fail, partly because if it failed in 2020, opinions will not have changed that much, and partly because France has provided a lot of help, in the form of Covid supply's (PPE and so on) as well as money over the last 18 months, that any change is likely to have been to 'remain' but we will see, do we know when the result will be announced?
I don't know. It would be interesting to find out.
Spent last night off my fucking tiny tits in a Kensington Restaurant til the wee-ish hours, raucously singing Xmas carols with a bunch of old friends. Glorious
Please will you now stop with your anti-science nonsense? Note that this is NOT a call for a particular policy. There are still valid schools of thought that say "masks work, but we shouldn't mandate them". But anyone who says masks don't work is a liar.
He will not stop. He is happy for other people's wives and daughters to die so that he can protect "liberty" for him, his wife and his daughter.
Tis the most noble of sacrifices - some of you are going to die, martyrs of course to the freedom I shall provide...
I don't really see that, because to the extent I feel like saying Sod it, let it rip, I am not regarding myself as less at risk than anyone else. Why would I think I was?
But that's exactly what Philip does do IMO: he goes on about how the elderly and sick will die and the rest of 'us' can have our freedom. He does see others - who are more at risk - as being expendable.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
Those months of "weakening" are why our numbers are not increasing in the same way as so many on the continent. As Whitty explained over a year ago the object of government policy is to flatten the curve and we have done that quite brilliantly. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved as a result.
*sigh*. We all understand the flatten the curve model. The problem is that Omicron is a different curve and we didn't create a flatter curve for Delta, just a very heavy viral load.
Again, month after month of sustained 40k new cases a day is BAD. It is not proof of the brilliance of Boris and the stupidity of the feckless Europeans. They got it right, we got in wrong. And here comes Omicron to knock the NHS over after months of unnecessary pressure.
I don't know whether it applies nationally, but several of my relatives who are in their 30s have been able to book their boosters since last night. My son-in-law managed to get his appointment for later today!
Discussed on here yesterday. News of the extension to the thirtysomethings leaked early and several people on here who belong to that age cohort got in early and booked appointments.
The booster booking website has also been updated so anyone who's older and booked a jab when the six month rule was still in force can interrogate it to see if there's a slot available sooner now that the rules have been changed, before they cancel the existing slot and rebook. Cut twelve days off my own wait, which could be vital under current circumstances.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
This is how news stories develop. Its the "does it have legs" test - if the story is going to keep going it walks / runs along under its own steam pulling in new information and new angles.
The "gotcha" is that they have caught him forcing people to die alone / give birth alone / live miserably whilst he and his ignore the rules they have imposed and carry on like they are ordained by God to do whatever they like.
People are outraged. Viscerally. Which superheats whatever new angles and information break. Propelling the story along every faster. The only way out for the PM is for a bigger story to replace it, but as Covid is powering up and lockdown is in the wings waiting to come on, this one will run and run getting bigger and bigger.
Does it ever cross your mind that the way our media "develop" news stories is just a little bit sick and self interested, feeding on themselves and eventually eating themselves?
Had no idea you had written today's Mail on Sunday front page.
Not even seen it RP. Are you still stuck in York?
No, turned round and came all the way back yesterday. Home for 21:30 having left at 06:20 - a long and pointless day. Mrs RP feels godawful but isn't seriously ill at the moment.
Best wishes to both of you. I fear you might not be feeling so well ere long too, but, if Mrs C's and my experiences are anything not go by, it will pass. Plenty of (non-alcoholic0 fluids and don't try anything too stressful. Some alcoholic fluids might be a good idea, but not too many!
She's convinced she got it from our daughter (who is now recovered). That being the case I have had as much exposure both directly from daughter and indirectly from wifey. It is what it is.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
As illustration there are currently 13,855 in French hospital with covid:
Those figures are interesting, but as ever, it is hard to compare between two different countries, who might have different admittance criteria, rules and regs, and even number of available critical care beds.
France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people; the UK has 2.5 That alone might make admittance criteria very different.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the EU social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs. After Blair invaded Iraq he annoyed leftwing voters too.
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
Those months of "weakening" are why our numbers are not increasing in the same way as so many on the continent. As Whitty explained over a year ago the object of government policy is to flatten the curve and we have done that quite brilliantly. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved as a result.
*sigh*. We all understand the flatten the curve model. The problem is that Omicron is a different curve and we didn't create a flatter curve for Delta, just a very heavy viral load.
Again, month after month of sustained 40k new cases a day is BAD. It is not proof of the brilliance of Boris and the stupidity of the feckless Europeans. They got it right, we got in wrong. And here comes Omicron to knock the NHS over after months of unnecessary pressure.
Omicron is not unrelated to Delta. Why are you pretending the acquired immunity from Delta will provide absolutely zero protection against Omicron?
Month after month of sustained 40k cases is FANTASTIC. Especially when the first part of that sustained wave was only possible with schools closed while the latter part was with schools open. Exponential growth is bad, sustained endemic cases is no problem.
Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi opens up the prospect of the Tories losing the North Shropshire byelection on Thursday - a seat they've held since 1832 and with a current majority of 23,000. He tells T&G: "Byelections have been historically used as a protest vote because... https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1469981003938738180
Mr Newton Dunn is incorrect. They've only held the seat since 1906.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
This is how news stories develop. Its the "does it have legs" test - if the story is going to keep going it walks / runs along under its own steam pulling in new information and new angles.
The "gotcha" is that they have caught him forcing people to die alone / give birth alone / live miserably whilst he and his ignore the rules they have imposed and carry on like they are ordained by God to do whatever they like.
People are outraged. Viscerally. Which superheats whatever new angles and information break. Propelling the story along every faster. The only way out for the PM is for a bigger story to replace it, but as Covid is powering up and lockdown is in the wings waiting to come on, this one will run and run getting bigger and bigger.
Does it ever cross your mind that the way our media "develop" news stories is just a little bit sick and self interested, feeding on themselves and eventually eating themselves?
Had no idea you had written today's Mail on Sunday front page.
Not even seen it RP. Are you still stuck in York?
No, turned round and came all the way back yesterday. Home for 21:30 having left at 06:20 - a long and pointless day. Mrs RP feels godawful but isn't seriously ill at the moment.
At least you missed the snow here. All the best to Mrs RP. Travelling when you are ill is just horrible.
I am not ill! Yet... Felt fine all day yesterday, negative LF last night, feel fine this morning.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
The wallpaper nonsense is every bit as ridiculous as the parties. Boris paid for his publicly owned flat to be redecorated according to his wife's taste! Even worse, someone else, not the public purse, paid for it for him in the first place and might well have done so permanently if it had not come out! Even worse, the right forms were not filled in!!
You don't think there is a problem with the Prime Minister seeking to sell himself to the highest bidder?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Our Prime Minister can be bought. He is desperate to be bought. It should be an embarrassment as well as an outrage.
The money that Lord Brownlow gives the Tory party makes this petty cash. It is absurd to suggest that this was what gave him influence.
£68k is more than I earn in a year. And this is petty cash?
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs
I have to agree with Hyufd here, although I'm surprised he's admitting it this openly. One of the biggest issues with FPTP is that it does tend to leave the parties openly chasing a sizeable 'client vote.' Tony Blair was definitely one of the worst exponents of it on those policies Hyufd listed, to which he could have added NI increases, tax credits, the backing off on welfare reform etc. which were designed to suit his client base. Boris Johnson is similar.
But there are examples I could cite with ease throughout history. Electoral reform in 1832, 1867 and 1885 all spring to mind, as does the supertax of 1909 the means test of Neville Chamberlain, the union legislation and share confiscations, oops, nationalisation under Attlee and the attacks on the mines and the unions under Thatcher.
This isn't a good thing (there he and I would part company) but it is definitely a thing. You see it in America too, which is one reason why politics there gets so polarised.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
It's known that France keeps severe Covid patients in hospital longer than other countries, which contributes to a relatively good recovery rate. Our World in Data records hospital admissions. I haven't done the analysis but they look broadly the same between UK and France. Sometimes one is ahead, sometimes the other, depending on where they are in the cycle.
Key point is that hospital data isn't a good like to like comparator. I believe there's a similar issue with Welsh hospital data compared with other UK nations, but not sure of the detail.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Westland?
I think if you're looking for total honesty in politicians you will look also for rocking horse shit.
Please will you now stop with your anti-science nonsense? Note that this is NOT a call for a particular policy. There are still valid schools of thought that say "masks work, but we shouldn't mandate them". But anyone who says masks don't work is a liar.
He will not stop. He is happy for other people's wives and daughters to die so that he can protect "liberty" for him, his wife and his daughter.
Tis the most noble of sacrifices - some of you are going to die, martyrs of course to the freedom I shall provide...
I don't really see that, because to the extent I feel like saying Sod it, let it rip, I am not regarding myself as less at risk than anyone else. Why would I think I was?
But that's exactly what Philip does do IMO: he goes on about how the elderly and sick will die and the rest of 'us' can have our freedom. He does see others - who are more at risk - as being expendable.
Well, being 60 I think I can just about align myself with the elderly and say it is a risk I am prepared to run, as are the seriously elderly people whose views I know (mother, aunt, godfather). They would unanimously prefer enhanced risk of death from the disease to another lockdown
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
Those months of "weakening" are why our numbers are not increasing in the same way as so many on the continent. As Whitty explained over a year ago the object of government policy is to flatten the curve and we have done that quite brilliantly. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved as a result.
*sigh*. We all understand the flatten the curve model. The problem is that Omicron is a different curve and we didn't create a flatter curve for Delta, just a very heavy viral load.
Again, month after month of sustained 40k new cases a day is BAD. It is not proof of the brilliance of Boris and the stupidity of the feckless Europeans. They got it right, we got in wrong. And here comes Omicron to knock the NHS over after months of unnecessary pressure.
I think (and hope) you will be wrong about this. The evidence so far is that having had any form of Covid gives some additional protection beyond the vaccines and the boosters. Given the JVCI delays in respect of vaccinating younger people their infection rate over the summer is an important line of defence for us.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
I'm interested to know what your alternative solution - one that keeps the hospitals afloat without causing the economy to implode - looks like. Is it permanent lockdown, never to be lifted for the rest of human history? After all, lighter touch restrictions have had no dramatic effect, and may have done no good at all. Looking at the current situation and that over the last few months, Scotland is currently doing a bit better than England in terms of caseload but the Scottish Government is in at least as much of a panic about Omicron as the one down in London. Wales and Northern Ireland have also been more cautious since July and have actually done worse.
This is your (wholly understandable) frustration with/disdain for Boris Johnson and all his works speaking again. All sound and fury, but no suggestion of any practical alternative to trying our best to live with the virus rather than under its yoke.
My alternative solution for England was the solution in most other European countries including my own. Don't drop all restrictions and tell the populace to go back to normal. Keep masks. Keep social distancing as *guidance* not a hard rule. Keep people sanitising. Reduce the spread.
An outrage. Didn't they know it was a once in a lifetime referendum?
You get the impression politicians in New Caledonia are getting a bit exasperated with voters making the wrong decision, lol.
I believe that the serial referendums on New Caledonia are part of a peculiar arrangement agreed to help end the armed separatist insurgency there. It was stipulated that three votes could be held if the local parliament asked for them, so this should be the last one.
I don't see how the photo can show he is breaking the law. The worst it shows is that he isn't socially distancing himself from two work colleagues, but that is probably only a reach of the Cabinet Office COVID risk assessment.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
So France has been higher for approximately 80% of the period, often significantly higher.
And Spain was higher for the first few months and then lower for the more recent few months - Spain having fewer anti-vaxxers being the main cause there I suspect.
Though the graph ends at 20/11 for Spain.
On the most recent data Spain has 5,569 covid hospitalisations:
which is about 10% higher than the UK population adjusted.
As to other countries, different countries have different patterns over different time periods.
Belgium for example is another country which has regularly had much higher hospitalisations during 2021.
Ultimately each country will have to deal with its own 'natural' level of covid hospitalisations caused by the age and health and vaccination willingness of its people.
In which case isn't a 'steady' level of covid hospitalisations easier to deal with than huge swings with much higher peaks ?
In any case RP's claim that the UK has uniquely been weakening its health system is exposed as bollox.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Despite their reputation politicians generally don't lie very much. I think they lie much less than almost anyone else in society. They bullshit, evade, mislead, and dissemble, but they try really hard not to get caught actually lying.
This is one of the things that makes Trump, and to a lesser extent Boris who plays the same game but less audaciously, sound *authentic*: Normal political speak is full of hedging and caveats, whereas Trump will use straightforward language saying what he wants people to believe and not worry about whether it's true or not.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
On the face of it, a "virtual quiz" doesn't exactly sound like a terrible breach of Covid regulations.
If talking to people virtually is a criminal offence you can throw away the key on me in the last 18 months. The rules are byzantine and stupid but I really cannot think of any one that I have read that would have been engaged. Not sure what SKS is talking about there, unless, maybe, it is the chap beside Boris?
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the EU social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs. After Blair invaded Iraq he annoyed leftwing voters too.
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
point of order: devolved parliaments were directly voted on in referendums. Conservative voters had just as much say on the issue as Labour ones.
What Conservative voters? There were very few of them in Scotland or Wales.
And arguably given the extreme pressure they have placed on our system of government, in effect disrupting the nature of government and creating two tiers of MPs, there should have been a nationwide vote on devolved assemblies for everyone rather than the half arsed mess Blair came up with to appease his supporters in Scotland and Wales.
Northern Ireland obviously is a somewhat different matter.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Westland?
I think if you're looking for total honesty in politicians you will look also for rocking horse shit.
LOL good analogy. 😂
Before my time but I thought Westland was Heseltine not Thatcher being dishonest?
Which is amusing considering Heseltine is now a usual suspect to criticise Boris with.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the EU social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs. After Blair invaded Iraq he annoyed leftwing voters too.
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
point of order: devolved parliaments were directly voted on in referendums. Conservative voters had just as much say on the issue as Labour ones.
They still voted against them. So they were still not pleasing everyone
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Westland?
I think if you're looking for total honesty in politicians you will look also for rocking horse shit.
LOL good analogy. 😂
Before my time but I thought Westland was Heseltine not Thatcher being dishonest?
Which is amusing considering Heseltine is now a usual suspect to criticise Boris with.
Thatcher was accused of lying as well. I don't know whether the allegation is accurate or not but certainly she doesn't seem to have told the whole truth.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Despite their reputation politicians generally don't lie very much. I think they lie much less than almost anyone else in society. They bullshit, evade, mislead, and dissemble, but they try really hard not to get caught actually lying.
This is one of the things that makes Trump, and to a lesser extent Boris who plays the same game but less audaciously, sound *authentic*: Normal political speak is full of hedging and caveats, whereas Trump will use straightforward language saying what he wants people to believe and not worry about whether it's true or not.
David Cameron told an outright lie during the EU referendum and he did so because he thought the truth would cost him votes.
And he was defended for his lie by many of those who now criticise Boris.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the EU social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs. After Blair invaded Iraq he annoyed leftwing voters too.
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
I think you'll find that some Tory voters, mainly admittedly in urban areas were, and indeed are, happy with the hunting ban. The minimum wage has worked out well, too. AFAIK no-one seeks to repeal either of those. The only policy that has been significantly changed is that relating the EU. And the Conservatives supported Blair's Iraq policy. Had they not done so it would have not passed the Commons.
Exactly what is it a breach of? You need to specify what activity is illegal and which regulation it broke, and how.
As you do with any law.
Posted last night
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
The wallpaper nonsense is every bit as ridiculous as the parties. Boris paid for his publicly owned flat to be redecorated according to his wife's taste! Even worse, someone else, not the public purse, paid for it for him in the first place and might well have done so permanently if it had not come out! Even worse, the right forms were not filled in!!
You don't think there is a problem with the Prime Minister seeking to sell himself to the highest bidder?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Our Prime Minister can be bought. He is desperate to be bought. It should be an embarrassment as well as an outrage.
The money that Lord Brownlow gives the Tory party makes this petty cash. It is absurd to suggest that this was what gave him influence.
Why did he do it then? Just because he fucking loves Johnson and NutNut?
Spent last night off my fucking tiny tits in a Kensington Restaurant til the wee-ish hours, raucously singing Xmas carols with a bunch of old friends. Glorious
I know you’ll be tempted, but don’t even think of reusing this. We’ll be on to you. You are a terrible human being. You richly deserve to lose sphincter control and seep slowly, steadily and fragrantly into your My Little Pony undies for the rest of your life.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the EU social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs. After Blair invaded Iraq he annoyed leftwing voters too.
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
I think you'll find that some Tory voters, mainly admittedly in urban areas were, and indeed are, happy with the hunting ban. The minimum wage has worked out well, too. AFAIK no-one seeks to repay either of those. The only policy that has been significantly changed is that relating the EU. And the Conservatives supported Blair's Iraq policy. Had they not done so it would have not passed them Commons.
Some but not all, especially not those involved in hunting in rural areas. Most Tory voters of course opposed Blair's EU policies and expansion of free movement absent transition controls, hence they voted for Brexit in 2016. So Blair certainly did not govern for Tory voters.
He then annoyed his leftwing base by invading Iraq and introducing tuition fees, so having tried to please everyone in 1997, by the time he left office he ended up pleasing almost nobody
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
As illustration there are currently 13,855 in French hospital with covid:
Those figures are interesting, but as ever, it is hard to compare between two different countries, who might have different admittance criteria, rules and regs, and even number of available critical care beds.
France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people; the UK has 2.5 That alone might make admittance criteria very different.
When the nightingale hospitals were set up we were often told that extra beds are useless with extra workers to tend the extra patients.
We're often also told that other countries have much higher numbers of hospital beds.
Given that health spending in France for example is IIRC pretty similar to in the UK then how do they have more than double the number of hospital beds ?
Different usage policy ? Different care policy ? Different focus of health spending ?
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Actually none of those are nearly as bad as Johnson. Johnson has no concept of the truth. None at all. The others told occasional lies for a purpose, mostly a purpose not in the public interest and therefore to be castigated. Maybe Blair more occasional than the rest.
Incidentally Thatcher lied about the sinking of the Belgrano, hence the Ponting case. Possibly also what Mark Thatcher got up to, but can't remember the details of that.
Govt really needs to stop with the ‘but we were working all hours to save the country’ excuse. The NHS were working all hours, social care, local govt, logistics people, vaccine manufacturers, the list goes on. It’s *not a good argument, stop saying it* https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1469993902795108356
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
I'm interested to know what your alternative solution - one that keeps the hospitals afloat without causing the economy to implode - looks like. Is it permanent lockdown, never to be lifted for the rest of human history? After all, lighter touch restrictions have had no dramatic effect, and may have done no good at all. Looking at the current situation and that over the last few months, Scotland is currently doing a bit better than England in terms of caseload but the Scottish Government is in at least as much of a panic about Omicron as the one down in London. Wales and Northern Ireland have also been more cautious since July and have actually done worse.
This is your (wholly understandable) frustration with/disdain for Boris Johnson and all his works speaking again. All sound and fury, but no suggestion of any practical alternative to trying our best to live with the virus rather than under its yoke.
My alternative solution for England was the solution in most other European countries including my own. Don't drop all restrictions and tell the populace to go back to normal. Keep masks. Keep social distancing as *guidance* not a hard rule. Keep people sanitising. Reduce the spread.
Scotland did not do measurably better than England. We can't keep NPIs forever.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
I'm interested to know what your alternative solution - one that keeps the hospitals afloat without causing the economy to implode - looks like. Is it permanent lockdown, never to be lifted for the rest of human history? After all, lighter touch restrictions have had no dramatic effect, and may have done no good at all. Looking at the current situation and that over the last few months, Scotland is currently doing a bit better than England in terms of caseload but the Scottish Government is in at least as much of a panic about Omicron as the one down in London. Wales and Northern Ireland have also been more cautious since July and have actually done worse.
This is your (wholly understandable) frustration with/disdain for Boris Johnson and all his works speaking again. All sound and fury, but no suggestion of any practical alternative to trying our best to live with the virus rather than under its yoke.
My alternative solution for England was the solution in most other European countries including my own. Don't drop all restrictions and tell the populace to go back to normal. Keep masks. Keep social distancing as *guidance* not a hard rule. Keep people sanitising. Reduce the spread.
That's an interestingly worded response. Have you formally given up on the Union now and joined the independence camp?
Anyhow, I refer to my previous response. Maintaining a more cautious approach since July has, at best, helped Scotland around the margins (it certainly didn't prevent the collapse of the Scottish ambulance service, for example, and nor has it spared the Scottish Government from the general panic over new restrictions now,) and doesn't appear to have done Wales any good at all.
Ultimately, what works best against this disease is radical self-isolation - keeping away from human contact completely - or, if you really must meet people rather than spending the remainder of your days communicating exclusively via Zoom or WhatsApp, only doing so outdoors. And the easier it becomes to catch the illness, the more acute this problem will get. We can't keep this going indefinitely.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
Is that a prediction or knowledge? Because time is running out for this story.
For the final Sunday Mirror before the by election and the final one before everyone goes home for Christmas to be leading with a pathetic Zoom quiz is hardly a rave.
That people are resorting to lines like "look there's tinsel in that room (in December)" as proof of a party shows that this barrel has reached its bottom.
Govt really needs to stop with the ‘but we were working all hours to save the country’ excuse. The NHS were working all hours, social care, local govt, logistics people, vaccine manufacturers, the list goes on. It’s *not a good argument, stop saying it* https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1469993902795108356
Police officer: You're nicked son, caught red handed breaking the law.
Burglar Bill: But officer, I've been working all hours.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
The last totally honest politician I can think of was Ian Paisley. He never said anything he did not believe even when it made things difficult for him. Even his political enemies admitted that and, in Northern Ireland politics, that is quite an admission.
I still regard him as a nutter, but an honest one...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h The Government has tried to make the Lateral Flow test the softener to Vaccine Passports, but almost everywhere in Europe that option is later removed.. Don’t be fooled, these ARE Vaccine Passports.
Can you guarantee that testing would remain @nadhimzahawi ?
Govt really needs to stop with the ‘but we were working all hours to save the country’ excuse. The NHS were working all hours, social care, local govt, logistics people, vaccine manufacturers, the list goes on. It’s *not a good argument, stop saying it* https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1469993902795108356
Somebody clearly reads my posts on PB. Perhaps I should demand royalties.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other...
Do they ? I think if you’re honest you’ll acknowledge that they say rather that he is completely unmoored from the truth to an extent which is unusual even in politicians.
People generally don’t like politicians; many of his supporters liked Boris. Or rather the image they had of him. That’s gone.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
As illustration there are currently 13,855 in French hospital with covid:
Those figures are interesting, but as ever, it is hard to compare between two different countries, who might have different admittance criteria, rules and regs, and even number of available critical care beds.
France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people; the UK has 2.5 That alone might make admittance criteria very different.
When the nightingale hospitals were set up we were often told that extra beds are useless with extra workers to tend the extra patients.
We're often also told that other countries have much higher numbers of hospital beds.
Given that health spending in France for example is IIRC pretty similar to in the UK then how do they have more than double the number of hospital beds ?
Different usage policy ? Different care policy ? Different focus of health spending ?
That's a really good question. Perhaps they fiddle the figures in different ways to ours.
But I wonder if it all depends on what you count as healthcare spending - for instance we might include things they do not, such as some aspects of social care, dentistry etc. Or our NHS might be really inefficient.
Exactly what is it a breach of? You need to specify what activity is illegal and which regulation it broke, and how.
As you do with any law.
Posted last night
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
I don't recall the regulations saying you can't consume alcohol. If people were huddled together round computers, that is a potential breach of the local risk assessment, but not illegal. And people have fun events at work.
Not saying it doesn't look bad, but I think it probably doesn't get over the "illegal" line. It's a bit annoying as my (Civil Service) employer banned social events and doesn't allow alcohol on the premises. And we are still only occupying half the desks (although the social distancing seems to work, two of us have recently had Covid and no-one else got it).
Is that a prediction or knowledge? Because time is running out for this story.
For the final Sunday Mirror before the by election and the final one before everyone goes home for Christmas to be leading with a pathetic Zoom quiz is hardly a rave.
That people are resorting to lines like "look there's tinsel in that room (in December)" as proof of a party shows that this barrel has reached its bottom.
However, from your point of view, there is one really good thing about this story. It's swept that silly model predicting 78 trillion deaths by next week off the front pages.
I don't know whether it applies nationally, but several of my relatives who are in their 30s have been able to book their boosters since last night. My son-in-law managed to get his appointment for later today!
I suspect that fairly soon the everybody who what's a booster will have had one, and we will be surprised at how many say no thanks, not anti-vaxers as they had the first 2 jabs, just board with this.
On that subject My booster is booked for next Friday, but over the last week I have had 7 text messages requesting that I book one. should I be suspishas that my original booking has not worked? or is this just a system that is not joined up? or are they trying to encourage me to move my booking earlier. if its the latter the messages are not worded that way.
Exactly what is it a breach of? You need to specify what activity is illegal and which regulation it broke, and how.
As you do with any law.
Posted last night
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
Guidance is not the same as the law, as I kept saying ad nauseam last year.
A "potential breach" is a marvellously elastic phrase.
It is presentationally very bad for the PM because it looks contemptuous and also because of the stupid lies around it all - and the fact that seemingly every government department was doing the same thing.
But the risk for Labour now is that they will over-egg it and make it seem as if wearing tinsel in the office is somehow a criminal offence for which people should be locked up.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
Interestingly it was the obvious dishonesty over it, rather than the sinking itself, which most annoyed people.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
Govt really needs to stop with the ‘but we were working all hours to save the country’ excuse. The NHS were working all hours, social care, local govt, logistics people, vaccine manufacturers, the list goes on. It’s *not a good argument, stop saying it* https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1469993902795108356
Somebody clearly reads my posts on PB. Perhaps I should demand royalties.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
As illustration there are currently 13,855 in French hospital with covid:
Those figures are interesting, but as ever, it is hard to compare between two different countries, who might have different admittance criteria, rules and regs, and even number of available critical care beds.
France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people; the UK has 2.5 That alone might make admittance criteria very different.
When the nightingale hospitals were set up we were often told that extra beds are useless with extra workers to tend the extra patients.
We're often also told that other countries have much higher numbers of hospital beds.
Given that health spending in France for example is IIRC pretty similar to in the UK then how do they have more than double the number of hospital beds ?
Different usage policy ? Different care policy ? Different focus of health spending ?
That's a really good question. Perhaps they fiddle the figures in different ways to ours.
But I wonder if it all depends on what you count as healthcare spending - for instance we might include things they do not, such as some aspects of social care, dentistry etc. Or our NHS might be really inefficient.
The latter point might have something to do with it. There are, presumably, good reasons why much of continental Europe opted for social insurance systems to cover healthcare provision, rather than copying "the envy of the world"?
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2023/4 they would govern for the priorities of Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
No one told Tony Blair.
The hunting ban, the minimum wage, devolved parliaments and the EU social chapter, taxes on pension funds, ending assisted places at private schools etc were certainly not delivering what Tory voters voted for in 1997 even if he was much less leftwing than most Labour PMs. After Blair invaded Iraq he annoyed leftwing voters too.
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
I think you'll find that some Tory voters, mainly admittedly in urban areas were, and indeed are, happy with the hunting ban. The minimum wage has worked out well, too. AFAIK no-one seeks to repay either of those. The only policy that has been significantly changed is that relating the EU. And the Conservatives supported Blair's Iraq policy. Had they not done so it would have not passed them Commons.
Some but not all, especially not those involved in hunting in rural areas. Most Tory voters of course opposed Blair's EU policies and expansion of free movement absent transition controls, hence they voted for Brexit in 2016. So Blair certainly did not govern for Tory voters.
He then annoyed his leftwing base by invading Iraq and introducing tuition fees, so having tried to please everyone in 1997, by the time he left office he ended up pleasing almost nobody
I'm sure you cannot draw that conclusion about the position of Conservative voters vis a vis the EU in the late 90's. Farage was still a City trader, seen as odd by his peers. And, looking at the figures, had the Conservatives not voted with the Government over Iraq, but had instead voted against the War, the Government would have been defeated and we would not have been dragged into war.
One can, of course, argue, that the average Iraqi is better off without Saddam but they've gone through, and are still going though much suffering to reach that point, and I'm not sure that they'd all agree with you.
Exactly what is it a breach of? You need to specify what activity is illegal and which regulation it broke, and how.
As you do with any law.
Posted last night
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
Guidance is not the same as the law, as I kept saying ad nauseam last year.
A "potential breach" is a marvellously elastic phrase.
It is presentationally very bad for the PM because it looks contemptuous and also because of the stupid lies around it all - and the fact that seemingly every government department was doing the same thing.
But the risk for Labour now is that they will over-egg it and make it seem as if wearing tinsel in the office is somehow a criminal offence for which people should be locked up.
I think I am reminded of Bonar Law's famous remark to Asquith, when he found the latter 'playing bridge' with three teenage girls on a Monday morning in the latter stages of the Somme campaign.
'In war it is necessary not only to be active but to be seen to be active.'
Similarly, here it is necessary not only to be following the law but to be seen to be following it.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h The Government has tried to make the Lateral Flow test the softener to Vaccine Passports, but almost everywhere in Europe that option is later removed.. Don’t be fooled, these ARE Vaccine Passports.
Can you guarantee that testing would remain @nadhimzahawi ?
Yes or NO
I think the testing option is a very important part of the process and should definitely stay. However I would be in favour of for it to count as a negative test you have to send a photo of the device in rather than just report it.
Yes, that is still easily got around for those who want to, but increasing the time and effort to cheat will change behaviour.
Personally I feel safer in the venues that require -ve LFTs specifically than those that allow either vaxx or LFTs.
I don't know whether it applies nationally, but several of my relatives who are in their 30s have been able to book their boosters since last night. My son-in-law managed to get his appointment for later today!
I suspect that fairly soon the everybody who what's a booster will have had one, and we will be surprised at how many say no thanks, not anti-vaxers as they had the first 2 jabs, just board with this.
On that subject My booster is booked for next Friday, but over the last week I have had 7 text messages requesting that I book one. should I be suspishas that my original booking has not worked? or is this just a system that is not joined up? or are they trying to encourage me to move my booking earlier. if its the latter the messages are not worded that way.
I think just bored is right.
I queued for 3.5 hours for my booster but I am increasingly reminded of the story of Jim callaghan in the navy in ww2. He religiously wrote his life jacket all day every day for years. On the day he was demobbed he took it off and chucked it overboard. It sank like a stone.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
So France has been higher for approximately 80% of the period, often significantly higher.
And Spain was higher for the first few months and then lower for the more recent few months - Spain having fewer anti-vaxxers being the main cause there I suspect.
Though the graph ends at 20/11 for Spain.
On the most recent data Spain has 5,569 covid hospitalisations:
which is about 10% higher than the UK population adjusted.
As to other countries, different countries have different patterns over different time periods.
Belgium for example is another country which has regularly had much higher hospitalisations during 2021.
Ultimately each country will have to deal with its own 'natural' level of covid hospitalisations caused by the age and health and vaccination willingness of its people.
In which case isn't a 'steady' level of covid hospitalisations easier to deal with than huge swings with much higher peaks ?
In any case RP's claim that the UK has uniquely been weakening its health system is exposed as bollox.
Yes, it's absolutely fair to say that over the past 6 months France has had a higher rate of hospitalisations. And Spain looks a bit over as well, albeit much more front-loaded. The other countries are there just to remind everyone that picking a couple of countries can give a false impression of the success or failure of a country. I don't know why you picked France and Spain, whether you were trying to cherry pick, but the remedy is to widen the comparison and see how the UK is doing on that front. And the answer appears to be "middling".
Easy availability of data is often a determinant.
But France is always a good pick because of similar size and proximity.
I would agree that the UK has been 'middling' in the last six months compared to other western European countries.
Much better of course than those in Eastern Europe but that's because of their much lower vaccination rates.
Ultimately though every country is going to get its inevitable number of covid hospitalisations based upon the age, health and vaccine willingness of its population.
It then becomes a strategy of managing those hospitalisations so that the health system is not overwhelmed at any point.
Which with its steady level of sub 10k numbers the UK has done pretty well.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
The last totally honest politician I can think of was Ian Paisley. He never said anything he did not believe even when it made things difficult for him. Even his political enemies admitted that and, in Northern Ireland politics, that is quite an admission.
I still regard him as a nutter, but an honest one...
Enoch Powell was also honest, same with Tony Benn, those on the political extremes often are as they never compromise
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
I'm interested to know what your alternative solution - one that keeps the hospitals afloat without causing the economy to implode - looks like. Is it permanent lockdown, never to be lifted for the rest of human history? After all, lighter touch restrictions have had no dramatic effect, and may have done no good at all. Looking at the current situation and that over the last few months, Scotland is currently doing a bit better than England in terms of caseload but the Scottish Government is in at least as much of a panic about Omicron as the one down in London. Wales and Northern Ireland have also been more cautious since July and have actually done worse.
This is your (wholly understandable) frustration with/disdain for Boris Johnson and all his works speaking again. All sound and fury, but no suggestion of any practical alternative to trying our best to live with the virus rather than under its yoke.
My alternative solution for England was the solution in most other European countries including my own. Don't drop all restrictions and tell the populace to go back to normal. Keep masks. Keep social distancing as *guidance* not a hard rule. Keep people sanitising. Reduce the spread.
Scotland did not do measurably better than England. We can't keep NPIs forever.
The consequences of Nicola's latest restrictions are going to be horrendous and put many struggling businesses in the entertainment and retail sectors out of business permanently, especially given the lack of financial support this time around.
But Nicola will be able to delay her demands for a second Indyref that she doesn't think she can win for a few more months and that is what matters.
Comments
The question is whether mask mandates work over the long term post vaccines. That I dispute.
Your first link is out of date and starts from a false premise. It refers to a shortage in medical grade masks, so advocates for cloth masks. That made sense last year pre-vaccines and while such a shortage existed so I agreed with it then.
Facts have changed since then though, it may have been true early in the pandemic, but now we have vaccines and we do not have a shortage of medical grade masks. If you want a medical grade mask you can get one from Amazon or elsewhere very easily.
Considering my proposal is that instead of pushing cloth masks on those who don't want one we'd be better off educating those who are worried to ditch their cloth masks and to wear a decent medical grade one instead, like Foxy for instance does at the football ... I don't consider an article written pre vaccines on the false premise that medical masks are in short supply as remotely relevant.
This is your (wholly understandable) frustration with/disdain for Boris Johnson and all his works speaking again. All sound and fury, but no suggestion of any practical alternative to trying our best to live with the virus rather than under its yoke. I'm also interested to know what the fall back position is if hospitals are either unwilling or unable to treat another tsunami of Covid patients. Who gets prioritised for euthanasia - the oldest and most clinically vulnerable, or those who could've chosen to be vaccinated but refused? If your colleagues are preparing either for a mass walkout or an impossibly large wave of admissions then you must, presumably, have discussed what comes next?
This is not an attempt to have a pop at you or make my own moral accusations BTW. We are all perfectly well aware, from the litany of stories we've heard throughout the pandemic, not just about elective treatment backlogs but of cancer and other serious and very urgent surgeries being cancelled for lack of recovery capacity in critical care, that the NHS already condemns non-Covid patients to permanent disability and death to free up room for Covid cases - it's just that people don't want to think about it. Sorting the Covid patients into priority order and denying some of them necessary treatment is no different.
https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/vue-d-ensemble?location=FRA
Whereas the UK has had fewer than 10k every day for over nine months.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
Go back to the Wilson/Thatcher/Blair/Major years, and governments at least paid lip service to the idea that they governed in the interest of everyone.
They might have disagreed about exactly what that interest was, and how to achieve it, and it didn't always happen, but it was acknowledged as desirable.
If we have moved to the job of a party being to collect together 45%, superserve them and screw everyone else, that's a Bad Thing.
Fuck OMICRON the MEASLY
Again, month after month of sustained 40k new cases a day is BAD. It is not proof of the brilliance of Boris and the stupidity of the feckless Europeans. They got it right, we got in wrong. And here comes Omicron to knock the NHS over after months of unnecessary pressure.
The booster booking website has also been updated so anyone who's older and booked a jab when the six month rule was still in force can interrogate it to see if there's a slot available sooner now that the rules have been changed, before they cancel the existing slot and rebook. Cut twelve days off my own wait, which could be vital under current circumstances.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-the-downing-street-party-break-the-law
France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people; the UK has 2.5 That alone might make admittance criteria very different.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/nhs-hospital-bed-numbers
Blair is therefore the classic example of someone who tried to please everyone, ended up pleasing almost noone
Month after month of sustained 40k cases is FANTASTIC. Especially when the first part of that sustained wave was only possible with schools closed while the latter part was with schools open. Exponential growth is bad, sustained endemic cases is no problem.
It was a breach.
You can argue the regs were stupid, but the bald fact remains.
Lots of people have been prosecuted.
One rule for them...
You could equally look at Caledonia on the other side where Madrid has refused even 1 independence referendum
But there are examples I could cite with ease throughout history. Electoral reform in 1832, 1867 and 1885 all spring to mind, as does the supertax of 1909 the means test of Neville Chamberlain, the union legislation and share confiscations, oops, nationalisation under Attlee and the attacks on the mines and the unions under Thatcher.
This isn't a good thing (there he and I would part company) but it is definitely a thing. You see it in America too, which is one reason why politics there gets so polarised.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Key point is that hospital data isn't a good like to like comparator. I believe there's a similar issue with Welsh hospital data compared with other UK nations, but not sure of the detail.
I think if you're looking for total honesty in politicians you will look also for rocking horse shit.
As you do with any law.
And Spain was higher for the first few months and then lower for the more recent few months - Spain having fewer anti-vaxxers being the main cause there I suspect.
Though the graph ends at 20/11 for Spain.
On the most recent data Spain has 5,569 covid hospitalisations:
https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov/documentos/Actualizacion_520_COVID-19.pdf
which is about 10% higher than the UK population adjusted.
As to other countries, different countries have different patterns over different time periods.
Belgium for example is another country which has regularly had much higher hospitalisations during 2021.
Ultimately each country will have to deal with its own 'natural' level of covid hospitalisations caused by the age and health and vaccination willingness of its people.
In which case isn't a 'steady' level of covid hospitalisations easier to deal with than huge swings with much higher peaks ?
In any case RP's claim that the UK has uniquely been weakening its health system is exposed as bollox.
This is one of the things that makes Trump, and to a lesser extent Boris who plays the same game but less audaciously, sound *authentic*: Normal political speak is full of hedging and caveats, whereas Trump will use straightforward language saying what he wants people to believe and not worry about whether it's true or not.
And arguably given the extreme pressure they have placed on our system of government, in effect disrupting the nature of government and creating two tiers of MPs, there should have been a nationwide vote on devolved assemblies for everyone rather than the half arsed mess Blair came up with to appease his supporters in Scotland and Wales.
Northern Ireland obviously is a somewhat different matter.
Before my time but I thought Westland was Heseltine not Thatcher being dishonest?
Which is amusing considering Heseltine is now a usual suspect to criticise Boris with.
And he was defended for his lie by many of those who now criticise Boris.
And the Conservatives supported Blair's Iraq policy. Had they not done so it would have not passed the Commons.
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
Saw this, and thought you might like it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anthony-bourdain-jiujitsu-secret-reddit-posts-1268801/
I know you’ll be tempted, but don’t even think of reusing this. We’ll be on to you.
You are a terrible human being. You richly deserve to lose sphincter control and seep slowly, steadily and fragrantly into your My Little Pony undies for the rest of your life.
He then annoyed his leftwing base by invading Iraq and introducing tuition fees, so having tried to please everyone in 1997, by the time he left office he ended up pleasing almost nobody
When the nightingale hospitals were set up we were often told that extra beds are useless with extra workers to tend the extra patients.
We're often also told that other countries have much higher numbers of hospital beds.
Given that health spending in France for example is IIRC pretty similar to in the UK then how do they have more than double the number of hospital beds ?
Different usage policy ? Different care policy ? Different focus of health spending ?
Incidentally Thatcher lied about the sinking of the Belgrano, hence the Ponting case. Possibly also what Mark Thatcher got up to, but can't remember the details of that.
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1469993902795108356
Regardless of the legalities, what this does is to poison the Conservative brand and Boris in particular.
Even if he is found innocent, the reputational damage is still done
Anyhow, I refer to my previous response. Maintaining a more cautious approach since July has, at best, helped Scotland around the margins (it certainly didn't prevent the collapse of the Scottish ambulance service, for example, and nor has it spared the Scottish Government from the general panic over new restrictions now,) and doesn't appear to have done Wales any good at all.
Ultimately, what works best against this disease is radical self-isolation - keeping away from human contact completely - or, if you really must meet people rather than spending the remainder of your days communicating exclusively via Zoom or WhatsApp, only doing so outdoors. And the easier it becomes to catch the illness, the more acute this problem will get. We can't keep this going indefinitely.
For the final Sunday Mirror before the by election and the final one before everyone goes home for Christmas to be leading with a pathetic Zoom quiz is hardly a rave.
That people are resorting to lines like "look there's tinsel in that room (in December)" as proof of a party shows that this barrel has reached its bottom.
Burglar Bill: But officer, I've been working all hours.
I still regard him as a nutter, but an honest one...
@EssexPR
·
2h
The Government has tried to make the Lateral Flow test the softener to Vaccine Passports, but almost everywhere in Europe that option is later removed..
Don’t be fooled, these ARE Vaccine Passports.
Can you guarantee that testing would remain
@nadhimzahawi
?
Yes or NO
https://twitter.com/GeneralGoth/status/1469092350634954754
Some people on that site are seriously mentally ill or exceptionally persistent performance artists.
I think if you’re honest you’ll acknowledge that they say rather that he is completely unmoored from the truth to an extent which is unusual even in politicians.
People generally don’t like politicians; many of his supporters liked Boris. Or rather the image they had of him.
That’s gone.
But I wonder if it all depends on what you count as healthcare spending - for instance we might include things they do not, such as some aspects of social care, dentistry etc. Or our NHS might be really inefficient.
Not saying it doesn't look bad, but I think it probably doesn't get over the "illegal" line. It's a bit annoying as my (Civil Service) employer banned social events and doesn't allow alcohol on the premises. And we are still only occupying half the desks (although the social distancing seems to work, two of us have recently had Covid and no-one else got it).
On that subject My booster is booked for next Friday, but over the last week I have had 7 text messages requesting that I book one. should I be suspishas that my original booking has not worked? or is this just a system that is not joined up? or are they trying to encourage me to move my booking earlier. if its the latter the messages are not worded that way.
A "potential breach" is a marvellously elastic phrase.
It is presentationally very bad for the PM because it looks contemptuous and also because of the stupid lies around it all - and the fact that seemingly every government department was doing the same thing.
But the risk for Labour now is that they will over-egg it and make it seem as if wearing tinsel in the office is somehow a criminal offence for which people should be locked up.
And, looking at the figures, had the Conservatives not voted with the Government over Iraq, but had instead voted against the War, the Government would have been defeated and we would not have been dragged into war.
One can, of course, argue, that the average Iraqi is better off without Saddam but they've gone through, and are still going though much suffering to reach that point, and I'm not sure that they'd all agree with you.
'In war it is necessary not only to be active but to be seen to be active.'
Similarly, here it is necessary not only to be following the law but to be seen to be following it.
Yes, that is still easily got around for those who want to, but increasing the time and effort to cheat will change behaviour.
Personally I feel safer in the venues that require -ve LFTs specifically than those that allow either vaxx or LFTs.
I queued for 3.5 hours for my booster but I am increasingly reminded of the story of Jim callaghan in the navy in ww2. He religiously wrote his life jacket all day every day for years. On the day he was demobbed he took it off and chucked it overboard. It sank like a stone.
But France is always a good pick because of similar size and proximity.
I would agree that the UK has been 'middling' in the last six months compared to other western European countries.
Much better of course than those in Eastern Europe but that's because of their much lower vaccination rates.
Ultimately though every country is going to get its inevitable number of covid hospitalisations based upon the age, health and vaccine willingness of its population.
It then becomes a strategy of managing those hospitalisations so that the health system is not overwhelmed at any point.
Which with its steady level of sub 10k numbers the UK has done pretty well.
But Nicola will be able to delay her demands for a second Indyref that she doesn't think she can win for a few more months and that is what matters.