@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
Having been too lazy busy to dig into the actual documents myself, I've been going on the comments from you two.
1. Nigel provides strong evidence on low false positives (1-0 to Nigel) 2. Bart pops in a cheaky one straight from the restart with the quote about supervision (1-1?) 3. Nigel repeats that they are community tests. VAR disallows goal. (1-0) 4. Bart brought down in area with slightly different quote on ATSs. Ref points to spot, I think. Not sure.
I would note that my Uni had one of the first ATSs, internally run, not NHS as such. Supervsion there extended to being given the test, asked if you knew what you were doing and that was it. Nowadays, you just get given the test.
I might have to go off and read the study myself if you two don't sort this out!
Given we were originally talking about Liverpool, you'd think they would be doing supervised tests as part of the training regime etc, not just relying on players doing it themselves? So self-test cockup, if a possible source of false positives (which is not itself conclusive) seems unlikely in that case.
Such a high rate in a single setting could be cross contamination (there were those who were infected), or a seriously duff batch of tests. Note we've seen similar clusters of false results for PCR with the lab error.
Wonder if England's number will be higher or lower than 137,541 (Last Monday). Lower might indicate we're past the peak, higher wouldn't be great news.
You are the ghost of Brucie and I claim my jackpot! Good game.
We won't really get a clear picture for another week or so - data still fuzzed by bank holiday effects and atypical patterns of behaviour at Christmas/New Year.
@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
Having been too lazy busy to dig into the actual documents myself, I've been going on the comments from you two.
1. Nigel provides strong evidence on low false positives (1-0 to Nigel) 2. Bart pops in a cheaky one straight from the restart with the quote about supervision (1-1?) 3. Nigel repeats that they are community tests. VAR disallows goal. (1-0) 4. Bart brought down in area with slightly different quote on ATSs. Ref points to spot, I think. Not sure.
I would note that my Uni had one of the first ATSs, internally run, not NHS as such. Supervsion there extended to being given the test, asked if you knew what you were doing and that was it. Nowadays, you just get given the test.
I might have to go off and read the study myself if you two don't sort this out!
Given we were originally talking about Liverpool, you'd think they would be doing supervised tests as part of the training regime etc, not just relying on players doing it themselves? So self-test cockup, if a possible source of false positives (which is not itself conclusive) seems unlikely in that case.
LFTs and PCR user test error is the same these days, I thought you'd get some NHS bod sticking a swab up your nose but the instructions and PCR test kit are just given for you to do whilst you park up.
Yep, but for LFT there is also the do test at home option, which might include opening the thing, forgetting whether you put it in your nose or not, accidentally swapping your swab or test strip or solution with your partner's (who, being a bit drunk and incapable of reading instructions carefully swabbed armpit for five minutes), not noticing that your eldest son snorted the solution and replaced it with urine and the aforementioned red-pen tampering problem
I'm willing to believe that the more focused process of going somewhere specifically to do the test could change the number of positives and negatives a little. Although I'd still err towards it increasing sensitivity rather than specificity, if anything.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
A majority of UK voters voted for Progressive Parties in 2019. Fact.
Yes, over 90%.
This government has allowed HIV-positive people to join the armed services.
If Boris can steer England through to the end of January with no NHS collapse and declining Omicron cases - and no further restrictions - then OGH will likely win his 3/1 bet (IIRC) on there being at least one Tory poll lead this month
Might also make Drakeford/Sturgeon look a little foolish
But, as always with Covid, 🙏🙏🙏🙏
If things go quiet for a few months and the cost of living leaps in Spring are muted, then I could see the Tory share climbing back up to be on level pegging or even a tiny bit ahead of Labour. The two things that have shifted since a few months ago though are the small but sustained increased in Lib Dem VI (bad for Tories) and a small decline in Green (good for Labour), plus possibly enough of an uptick in SNP to cost the Tories a few close seats in Scotland especially if unionist tactical voting unwinds.
The impact of all of this, plus what looks like a falling out with Boris in the North, could mean the Labour vote becomes a little less inefficient than it might have been.
FT and other business media now saying the INFLATION BOMB is unlikely to be a thing at all, very short lived if anything.
Like I said yesterday, there’s two scientific ways of looking at it. Both are right, just question of degree and weighting. Sure governments been double digit behind mid terms come back to win, and you have (no need to name them) PBers trawling over polls and sub samples for upticks to support that argument. But on the other hand, can’t remember ant and Dec and darts sing song or everyone in country calling Cameron lazy liar bastard I hate him, for example, so I am sure makes this different.
LOL. Do a search on UK inflation forecasts, and you throw up lots of last year's forecasts with the UK inflation predicted to rise to about 3% in 2022 and then drop back.
Yet we're already up to 5%+, and even the BoE is now expecting 5-6% by April with high inflation persisting through the year.
It'll be a miracle if this passes quickly and we're back at 2.5%-ish by Christmas.
Not according to financial press now, who are saying it likely to be short term spike. Political betting wise we can’t factor in its certain to be a huge poll plunging credit crunch.
Choose the correct energy price mitigation package, and it will have quite the effect on inflation.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
SKS has a MUCH better than 13.9% chance of being next PM. He has a 33% chance. I'm long of him at average 8 and it's one of my best positions.
What's your working out for that? What are the odds that he becomes PM after the election, and what are the odds that Boris isn't replaced? And remember that these are not independent bets, if Labour look like winning the odds increase that Boris is replaced.
I estimate a 25% chance that Labour wins the next election (ie gets PM, even if behind in seats). Of which that's a 5% chance of a Labour overall majority and a 20% chance of NOM leading to Labour gaining Downing Street.
I estimate about a 16% chance that Boris is replaced before the next election.
However there's a lot of overlap between the 25% and the 16% which would make Starmer next PM a losing bet.
Overall therefore 7.2 seems like a fair price by my maths and I wouldn't personally enter the market either back or lay.
Ok, so I see a 66% chance of the GE being SKS v BJ and I give SKS a 50% chance of emerging from it as PM.
Your numbers are relatively comparable to mine, just doubled for both. I had 1/4 for SKS emerging as PM and 1/6 for BJ being replaced (I'm assuming a 0% chance of SKS being replaced) and you've doubled both for 1/2 and 1/3.
But you've not factored in the overlap. Do you really see no overlap between the 1/3 chance you've given to BJ being replaced and SKS winning 1/2 chance?
Those possibilities are correlated so multiplying them together is bad maths. The 2/3 chance you've given for BJ not being replaced will largely overlap with the 1/2 chance you've given for SKS losing the election - and the 1/3 chance you've given for him being replaced will largely overlap with the 1/2 chance you've given for the election being lost by the Tories.
I'm pretty sure that you've read it wrong. There's "will it be BJ v SKS?"; then - given that it IS BJ v SKS - "who wins out of BJ & SKS?". There's zero chance that it isn't BJ v SKS once we get to the second question.
Only if he means 50% from BJ v SKS rather than 50% for SKS winning.
Considering that NOT BJ v SKS has a higher chance of SKS winning than BJ v SKS (because BJ is more likely to be replaced if it looks like the Tories are losing the next election) then that only works if Kinabalu is saying SKS has a greater than 50% chance of winning the next election.
If he's saying there's a 50% chance of SKS winning the next election then the two questions are not independent.
That's what I thought @kinabalu meant by "from it", where "it" was "GE being SKS v BJ".
And it's the only way his maths would work.
So, we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant the simple explanation in which his maths works, rather than the slightly more complicated version in which they don't?
The alternative is I'm the sort of fluffy type who doesn't understand conditional probabilities.
What's the expected lifetime of these? (Assuming they don't get blown up). 25 years?
The Australians don't fuck around with clapped out gear and generally upgrade relatively quickly. Their M1A1s which are being replaced were only bought in the mid noughties so their A2s will be around for 15-20 years.
Meanwhile the British army hasn't managed to procure a new armoured vehicle for 35 years.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
Fading Ratings: How far broadcast tv has tumbled since 2015
- Viewership metrics for the 18-49 demo show tremendous declines in live and same-day viewing for primetime fall shows
- Scripted content has seen the biggest drops as consumption patterns change
- There are just 10 shows or special events with an average 18-49 demo rating greater than 1.0 in 2021, versus 77 in 2015
My comment got lost at the end of the previous thread:
On the opinion polls, it may well be that the Tories recover and sail to victory at the next GE.
But what's interesting is the change of mood on PB. It's not so long ago that virtually everybody (right, centre, and left) thought that a Tory GE victory in 2024 or whenever was a slam dunk. The accepted view was that Starmer was hopeless, the Shadow Cabinet crap, and Labour moribund. Whereas Boris, to coin a phrase, had his finger on the metaphorical clitoris of enough of the British people to get away with anything and serve at least two terms.
How that has changed. Many, if not most, posters seem to think a Labour minority government is reasonably likely, and even a handful think an outright Labour win is not inconceivable. Even HYUFD has been hinting that the Tories are unlikely to be in power next time around. The mood music has certainly changed, hasn't it?
What's the expected lifetime of these? (Assuming they don't get blown up). 25 years?
The Australians don't fuck around with clapped out gear and generally upgrade relatively quickly. Their M1A1s which are being replaced were only bought in the mid noughties so their A2s will be around for 15-20 years.
Meanwhile the British army hasn't managed to procure a new armoured vehicle for 35 years.
FUDHY was hoping to hitch a lift on one of them during his long march on Edinburgh.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
Having been too lazy busy to dig into the actual documents myself, I've been going on the comments from you two.
1. Nigel provides strong evidence on low false positives (1-0 to Nigel) 2. Bart pops in a cheaky one straight from the restart with the quote about supervision (1-1?) 3. Nigel repeats that they are community tests. VAR disallows goal. (1-0) 4. Bart brought down in area with slightly different quote on ATSs. Ref points to spot, I think. Not sure.
I would note that my Uni had one of the first ATSs, internally run, not NHS as such. Supervsion there extended to being given the test, asked if you knew what you were doing and that was it. Nowadays, you just get given the test.
I might have to go off and read the study myself if you two don't sort this out!
Given we were originally talking about Liverpool, you'd think they would be doing supervised tests as part of the training regime etc, not just relying on players doing it themselves? So self-test cockup, if a possible source of false positives (which is not itself conclusive) seems unlikely in that case.
Thinking about how to score this in the end. I see a two possible outcomes: 1. Nigel is wrong. Following argument, he sees this and admits it. Easy to score. 2. Bart is wrong. Argument continues until heat death of the universe or Nigel getting bored with it.
Difficulty here is picking the point at which we're past where 1 would surely have happened and therefore conclude 2.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
Amazing timing....
Documents sent to all players by Tennis Australia stated applications for medical exemptions must come ‘no later’ than December 10
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3m When you bear in mind these figures, suddenly the fact that over 150k people died doesn't seem so bad - that might be only 1/10 of what might hv happened. It's actually pretty remarkable there were as few deaths as there have been. Frownie critics miss this crucial context.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
Even if they did that would mean that in effect there was a Labour-Conservative Grand Coalition in England even if a Labour-SNP agreement UK wide
Sounds like a recipe for much strong and great stable.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least fails to win most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3m When you bear in mind these figures, suddenly the fact that over 150k people died doesn't seem so bad - that might be only 1/10 of what might hv happened. It's actually pretty remarkable there were as few deaths as there have been. Frownie critics miss this crucial context.
Certain elements of twitter have been pushing the single quote by Witty early on that 20k was a good result as evidence UK has failed miserably. Many mistakes made, but nobody in Europe now has managed to keep covid / deaths to anywhere near that pro-rata rate.
Swedish Witty made the right call early on in terms of stating this will go on for 2-3 years at least. Where he was wrong is he thought it would take that long for a vaccine.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
Having been too lazy busy to dig into the actual documents myself, I've been going on the comments from you two.
1. Nigel provides strong evidence on low false positives (1-0 to Nigel) 2. Bart pops in a cheaky one straight from the restart with the quote about supervision (1-1?) 3. Nigel repeats that they are community tests. VAR disallows goal. (1-0) 4. Bart brought down in area with slightly different quote on ATSs. Ref points to spot, I think. Not sure.
I would note that my Uni had one of the first ATSs, internally run, not NHS as such. Supervsion there extended to being given the test, asked if you knew what you were doing and that was it. Nowadays, you just get given the test.
I might have to go off and read the study myself if you two don't sort this out!
Given we were originally talking about Liverpool, you'd think they would be doing supervised tests as part of the training regime etc, not just relying on players doing it themselves? So self-test cockup, if a possible source of false positives (which is not itself conclusive) seems unlikely in that case.
Thinking about how to score this in the end. I see a two possible outcomes: 1. Nigel is wrong. Following argument, he sees this and admits it. Easy to score. 2. Bart is wrong. Argument continues until heat death of the universe or Nigel getting bored with it.
Difficulty here is picking the point at which we're past where 1 would surely have happened and therefore conclude 2.
I'm finished discussing it for the day, I have stuff to do.
But if there's an answer for why confirmatory results were 93.7% which is the source for the 1/1000 claim but confirmatory results now are only 87% then I'd be curious what it is.
An increase of nearly 7% in the LFD results not being verified seems statistically significant to me. It doesn't seem plausible to wish it all away as PCR false negatives, since PCR false negatives were accounted for in the original evidence using a very different figure.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Wasn't it a requirement to isolate there, too?
That's for the authorities there to deal with, if they can be arsed.
You really think its unusual or noteworthy that people haven't always isolated when instructed to do so?
That seems blissfully naive.
The Serbian authorities don't seem bothered by it either way.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Wasn't it a requirement to isolate there, too?
That's for the authorities there to deal with, if they can be arsed.
You really think its unusual or noteworthy that people haven't always isolated when instructed to do so?
That seems blissfully naive.
Hm, I don't think that's a majority position actually. I think most people would isolate if it was required by law.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Legislation that applies only to England, such as on Sunday trading, is not decided in an English legislature, as it doesn't exist.
@BartholomewRoberts FPT I don't know how false positives would be more viable, but considering soft-drinks can trigger a false positive its clearly possible. To rule that out with a 1/1000 claim for a clinical setting is really disingenuous.
Pure speculation but could recently drinking a soft drink be triggering the false positive? Or environmental factors?
Given that false positives are possible, there certainly can be either environmental or operational reasons to cause them which would make the 1/1000 claim total bunkum. I provided you with a link and quote on the last thread for an analysis of 1.7m community LFTs, which is where the 1 in 1000 figure came from. So your comment is bunkum.
Bollocks you did. You provided a link to a nearly a year old analysis of 1.7m LFTs of which 24,147 matched with a PCR positive, but the LFTs were taken from community testing at "LFD Community Testing at NHS Test and Trace Asymptomatic Testing Sites (ATSs) "
If you consider NHS testing sites under the supervision of NHS staff the same as self-administered at home or work then I can't help you.
At least Selebian could see the difference even if you can't.
Having been too lazy busy to dig into the actual documents myself, I've been going on the comments from you two.
1. Nigel provides strong evidence on low false positives (1-0 to Nigel) 2. Bart pops in a cheaky one straight from the restart with the quote about supervision (1-1?) 3. Nigel repeats that they are community tests. VAR disallows goal. (1-0) 4. Bart brought down in area with slightly different quote on ATSs. Ref points to spot, I think. Not sure.
I would note that my Uni had one of the first ATSs, internally run, not NHS as such. Supervsion there extended to being given the test, asked if you knew what you were doing and that was it. Nowadays, you just get given the test.
I might have to go off and read the study myself if you two don't sort this out!
Given we were originally talking about Liverpool, you'd think they would be doing supervised tests as part of the training regime etc, not just relying on players doing it themselves? So self-test cockup, if a possible source of false positives (which is not itself conclusive) seems unlikely in that case.
Thinking about how to score this in the end. I see a two possible outcomes: 1. Nigel is wrong. Following argument, he sees this and admits it. Easy to score. 2. Bart is wrong. Argument continues until heat death of the universe or Nigel getting bored with it.
Difficulty here is picking the point at which we're past where 1 would surely have happened and therefore conclude 2.
Football manager doesn't square all the epidemiological niceties when having a moan about something adversely impacting his team.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Wasn't it a requirement to isolate there, too?
That's for the authorities there to deal with, if they can be arsed.
You really think its unusual or noteworthy that people haven't always isolated when instructed to do so?
That seems blissfully naive.
Hm, I don't think that's a majority position actually. I think most people would isolate if it was required by law.
Most might, but why does Novax need to be in the majority?
He seems like someone who'd quite happily be in the minority.
If the Serbian authorities want to take it up with him they can do, but it doesn't seem like they're bothered either.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Wasn't it a requirement to isolate there, too?
That's for the authorities there to deal with, if they can be arsed.
You really think its unusual or noteworthy that people haven't always isolated when instructed to do so?
That seems blissfully naive.
Hm, I don't think that's a majority position actually. I think most people would isolate if it was required by law.
Most might, but why does Novax need to be in the majority?
He seems like someone who'd quite happily be in the minority.
If the Serbian authorities want to take it up with him they can do, but it doesn't seem like they're bothered either.
And now I really must go.
I just don't think it makes me "blissfully naive" for thinking that most people will comply with the laws and regulations. That he doesn't, and in quite a spectacular fashion, is noteworthy.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
If I Australia I would use the evidence he didn't follow the rules in Serbia as the reason to cancel his visa as he obviously can't be trusted to follow basic COVID protocols, when at this time in (we) Australia need everybody to make a national effort to ensure we minimise covid spread.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3m When you bear in mind these figures, suddenly the fact that over 150k people died doesn't seem so bad - that might be only 1/10 of what might hv happened. It's actually pretty remarkable there were as few deaths as there have been. Frownie critics miss this crucial context.
And the smilies can't jump on it, either, because it would mean admitting that Ferguson was right in March 2020.
(Well, technically, the estimate of 500,000 was wrong, but in the low direction)
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
Or didn't care that he had Covid?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
BBC - The letter appears to say the test was returned seven hours after it was conducted.
So quite possibly didn't care that he had Covid then, just as many other people globally don't. That's an issue for the authorities wherever he was living at the time to take up if they choose to do so. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to ignore a positive test and continued to socialise.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Sounds to me like an unvaccinated individual who doesn't care whether they infect others is not the sort of individual the Australian Government want coming into their country.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3m When you bear in mind these figures, suddenly the fact that over 150k people died doesn't seem so bad - that might be only 1/10 of what might hv happened. It's actually pretty remarkable there were as few deaths as there have been. Frownie critics miss this crucial context.
And the smilies can't jump on it, either, because it would mean admitting that Ferguson was right in March 2020.
(Well, technically, the estimate of 500,000 was wrong, but in the low direction)
Over what time period was Ferguson estimate based? I honestly can't remember.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least fails to win most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
3. Struggle on for a few months and then call another general election in short order to settle the matter one way or another (hopefully).
My comment got lost at the end of the previous thread:
On the opinion polls, it may well be that the Tories recover and sail to victory at the next GE.
But what's interesting is the change of mood on PB. It's not so long ago that virtually everybody (right, centre, and left) thought that a Tory GE victory in 2024 or whenever was a slam dunk. The accepted view was that Starmer was hopeless, the Shadow Cabinet crap, and Labour moribund. Whereas Boris, to coin a phrase, had his finger on the metaphorical clitoris of enough of the British people to get away with anything and serve at least two terms.
How that has changed. Many, if not most, posters seem to think a Labour minority government is reasonably likely, and even a handful think an outright Labour win is not inconceivable. Even HYUFD has been hinting that the Tories are unlikely to be in power next time around. The mood music has certainly changed, hasn't it?
At the moment the written press have been quite happy to bite chunks off Johnson and the Tories, hence why labour have been edging up, at some time they are going to have to make a decision, if god forbid Johnson stays on till the next election, they are then going to have to pretend what an competent, hard working, PM he has been, and turn there guns on Labour, lets see what that does to the polls
I've ridden this train once before, due to Kinabalu pointing out the value when Starmer was ~8 (rode it down to 4.something and then got out).
Same issues as before with it actually winning - need the narrowish window of Johson doing well enough to not get kicked out but bad enough for Starmer to be next PM, but likely value at 7.2. Guess I should go back in if those are still the odds, probably with a view to trading out again, though.
Edit: traded out at 4.6, which was about the peak. Not often I manage to do that.
A key part of the argument is that perhaps the window is not that narrow. Are the Tories not quite as ruthless at kicking out a failing leader as the narrative sometimes goes? And not just a party leader, but the person who is also PM? First rule of political betting is that people overestimate the probability of people being kicked out.
Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees
Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.
Adults must minimise indoors contact.
Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated Up to 500 if vaccinated.
Universities can resume distance learning.
Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50
Private parties: max 20 must be seated.
Restrictions on sports events indoors
Etc
Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.
We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.
The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.
As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!
Ladbrokes are offering 11/8 on BJ still being PM coming into the next GE.
They're also offering 2/5 on SKS lasting until 2024 as Lab leader (pretty much the same thing as being so at next GE)
I make that 2.325/1 for the double, which they should offer as I can't see how they're related contingencies.
This represents a probability of 30% that BJ and SKS are leaders at the next election. Those who think it's much more likely should maybe pile on here.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least fails to win most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
3. Struggle on for a few months and then call another general election in short order to settle the matter one way or another (hopefully).
We've gone through 1 in the past and it's not required. The decision the SNP has is support Starmer or let the Tories in. Which would be a reason for SNP supporters to vote Labour in the second general election that would undoubtedly follow a general election with no sane result. Which leaves a more likely option as
1b. Take power, wait for the SNP to vote against something and call a second general election
Ha. I'm re-reading Ammianus Marcellus' history of The Later Roman Empire and he's excoriating Gallus for wanting a price freeze. I recall using that to mock Miliband's energy price cap nonsense, and now the selfsame daftness (imposed by the blues, not the reds!) is causing woe.
My comment got lost at the end of the previous thread:
On the opinion polls, it may well be that the Tories recover and sail to victory at the next GE.
But what's interesting is the change of mood on PB. It's not so long ago that virtually everybody (right, centre, and left) thought that a Tory GE victory in 2024 or whenever was a slam dunk. The accepted view was that Starmer was hopeless, the Shadow Cabinet crap, and Labour moribund. Whereas Boris, to coin a phrase, had his finger on the metaphorical clitoris of enough of the British people to get away with anything and serve at least two terms.
How that has changed. Many, if not most, posters seem to think a Labour minority government is reasonably likely, and even a handful think an outright Labour win is not inconceivable. Even HYUFD has been hinting that the Tories are unlikely to be in power next time around. The mood music has certainly changed, hasn't it?
At the moment the written press have been quite happy to bite chunks off Johnson and the Tories, hence why labour have been edging up, at some time they are going to have to make a decision, if god forbid Johnson stays on till the next election, they are then going to have to pretend what an competent, hard working, PM he has been, and turn there guns on Labour, lets see what that does to the polls
Yes, I agree with that.
But I suspect that a) the press will find it harder to big up Johnson than they did in 2019, and b) the press will find it harder to portray Starmer as an existential risk to the country than they did Corbyn in 2019.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least fails to win most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
3. Struggle on for a few months and then call another general election in short order to settle the matter one way or another (hopefully).
We've gone through 1 in the past and it's not required. The decision the SNP has is support Starmer or let the Tories in. Which would be a reason for SNP supporters to vote Labour in the second general election that would undoubtedly follow a general election with no sane result. Which leaves a more likely option as
1b. Take power, wait for the SNP to vote against something and call a second general election
Ha. I'm re-reading Ammianus Marcellus' history of The Later Roman Empire and he's excoriating Gallus for wanting a price freeze. I recall using that to mock Miliband's energy price cap nonsense, and now the selfsame daftness (imposed by the blues, not the reds!) is causing woe.
Mr. Dickson, we must only hope that the blues have the spine to turf out the court jester, and manage to avoid imposing someone worse upon the nation (and themselves).
So I didn't misread it, you've not factored in the overlap as I thought.
Its not just a case of whether the GE outcome could be impacted by whether BJ is replaced, that is complex I agree.
What is less complex is the expected GE outcome affecting whether BJ is replaced though.
If the Tories look like losing the election then they're more likely to replace BJ and vice-versa.
There's 4 possible outcomes and you've assigned the following probabilities to them. defining winning election as controlling Downing Street post-election:
1: BJ not replaced, Tories win election: 2/6 2: BJ not replaced, Labour win election: 2/6 3: BJ replaced, Tories win election: 1/6 4: BJ replaced, Labour win election: 1/6
But the two questions aren't independent. Both 1 and 4 should be more likely, and 2 and 3 less likely.
Not arguing with the maths, but you're assuming that the Tories see a bad result coming and go "oo-er, new leader time". Because replacing a leader is messy, it only hpapens when the situation is unambiguously bad. What is quite likely is that we go back to level pegging in the polls as the election approaches, and the Tories then don't want to rock the boat. On election day, however, voters think "Another 5 years of this? Nah." and don't turn out for the Tories.
Mr. Dickson, we must only hope that the blues have the spine to turf out the court jester, and manage to avoid imposing someone worse upon the nation (and themselves).
My comment got lost at the end of the previous thread:
On the opinion polls, it may well be that the Tories recover and sail to victory at the next GE.
But what's interesting is the change of mood on PB. It's not so long ago that virtually everybody (right, centre, and left) thought that a Tory GE victory in 2024 or whenever was a slam dunk. The accepted view was that Starmer was hopeless, the Shadow Cabinet crap, and Labour moribund. Whereas Boris, to coin a phrase, had his finger on the metaphorical clitoris of enough of the British people to get away with anything and serve at least two terms.
How that has changed. Many, if not most, posters seem to think a Labour minority government is reasonably likely, and even a handful think an outright Labour win is not inconceivable. Even HYUFD has been hinting that the Tories are unlikely to be in power next time around. The mood music has certainly changed, hasn't it?
The mood music on here has changed but I still think the Tories will win a majority and there is even an outside chance they may increase. The situation can change back rapidly (what happens if Labour has a poor result in Erdington, for example) as can the mood music. Just because the music has swung against BJ doesn't mean it is permanent.
It's also complicated by the fact there are so many marginal seats, admittedly on the old boundaries. Nearly 100 seats have a majority of sub 5% and around 170 with sub 10% majorities. It doesn't take much - whether lower turnout, slight swings etc - to get an extreme result.
My personal view is that SMS is really hamstrung by three things: (1) his personality (2) the lack of understanding about what Labour actually stands for and (3) the cultural issues where, regardless of his words, there is inherent distrust of Labour from segments of the population. It is also worth pointing out that, while many on here have stated that BJ will find it difficult to get back his popularity when it is lost, the same goes for many of Labour's former voters who feel as though the party looks down on them as uneducated plebs. Once they go, you never get them back - your best hope is that they don't vote for your rivals.
FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.
Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.
Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.
For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report
My comment got lost at the end of the previous thread:
On the opinion polls, it may well be that the Tories recover and sail to victory at the next GE.
But what's interesting is the change of mood on PB. It's not so long ago that virtually everybody (right, centre, and left) thought that a Tory GE victory in 2024 or whenever was a slam dunk. The accepted view was that Starmer was hopeless, the Shadow Cabinet crap, and Labour moribund. Whereas Boris, to coin a phrase, had his finger on the metaphorical clitoris of enough of the British people to get away with anything and serve at least two terms.
How that has changed. Many, if not most, posters seem to think a Labour minority government is reasonably likely, and even a handful think an outright Labour win is not inconceivable. Even HYUFD has been hinting that the Tories are unlikely to be in power next time around. The mood music has certainly changed, hasn't it?
The mood music on here has changed but I still think the Tories will win a majority and there is even an outside chance they may increase. The situation can change back rapidly (what happens if Labour has a poor result in Erdington, for example) as can the mood music. Just because the music has swung against BJ doesn't mean it is permanent.
It's also complicated by the fact there are so many marginal seats, admittedly on the old boundaries. Nearly 100 seats have a majority of sub 5% and around 170 with sub 10% majorities. It doesn't take much - whether lower turnout, slight swings etc - to get an extreme result.
My personal view is that SMS is really hamstrung by three things: (1) his personality (2) the lack of understanding about what Labour actually stands for and (3) the cultural issues where, regardless of his words, there is inherent distrust of Labour from segments of the population. It is also worth pointing out that, while many on here have stated that BJ will find it difficult to get back his popularity when it is lost, the same goes for many of Labour's former voters who feel as though the party looks down on them as uneducated plebs. Once they go, you never get them back - your best hope is that they don't vote for your rivals.
As does Boris who has promised levelling up and after 2 years delivered sod all so far.
And it's worth looking at Redcar, where you can clearly see that their are very happy to give other parties a chance but if those people fail to deliver they will return to Labour who at least deliver in part (which is always better than not at all).
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
England free to do what they want so long as the ruling party in Scotland permits it.
Sounds like England is a… what’s the word… colony?
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 49m This week those predicting an Omicron crisis will fold their cards. The argument will shift to "we'd have had a crisis if behaviour hadn't changed". But there was significantly more intergenerational Christmas mixing than last year. And that was supposed to be the main trigger.
What does he mean "fold their cards"? Its bloody brilliant that we're seemingly over the top - does he think there are people angry or upset by it?
We're by no means out of the woods yet - still got mega pressure on hospitals in various parts of the country. But can see the way through it which is way better than it looked even late last week.
Do you realise that the total number of patients in hospital is actually lower than the same time in 2020? The problem is mainly one of staff, and that is a huge issue. Not sure how we solve it to be honest, especially in the short term.
Do you realise that I am quoting the CEO of NHS Providers who is quoting the CEO of NHS Trusts? Nobody other than you mentioned the total number, this is specific trusts / regions like the NW of England where hospitalisation looks set to overtop the previous record a year ago.
The problem is as the NHS managers describe it at their hospitals to their CEO who tweets the facts.
*a little off topic *🐖 After Pope said too many petbabies you remember , they had dogbabies in my dad telegraph saying does the Pope have a point. I shared my master plan with my other half. We should have a teacup Pig. She was looking at me so heard me, but didn’t say anything. Maybe it was because she was drinking from a tea mug so got confused. That is a very miniature breed of pig I added. She took a long time but asked - what? In the Flat? Yes. I said. In the flat. Wilbur. She didn’t say anything. Then she put her headphones on and closed her eyes.
Those of you been in relationships longer than me. Do I take this as master plan back to drawing board already? My vision thing can see how nice it would be having little Wilbur to look after
Never said NO so you can always plead ignorance if it goes badly and blame her.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
Of course they would vote in everything. They would do exactly what they have done in the past and find some way to justify all legislation as having an impact on Scotland. They have track record for this including having to be blocked by the Speaker from voting under the EVEL Convention.
They don't. They abstain often - eg in some of the recent covid regs votes.
'Often' is a very subjective description. They regularly vote on matters that are otherwise devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Nothing subjective about it, if only involving England they never ever vote. If it affects Scotland , ie Barnett or any other way then of course you would expect them to vote as it is NOT and English only vote.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
England free to do what they want so long as the ruling party in Scotland permits it.
Sounds like England is a… what’s the word… colony?
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees
Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.
Adults must minimise indoors contact.
Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated Up to 500 if vaccinated.
Universities can resume distance learning.
Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50
Private parties: max 20 must be seated.
Restrictions on sports events indoors
Etc
Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.
We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.
The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.
As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!
Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least fails to win most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
3. Struggle on for a few months and then call another general election in short order to settle the matter one way or another (hopefully).
We've gone through 1 in the past and it's not required. The decision the SNP has is support Starmer or let the Tories in. Which would be a reason for SNP supporters to vote Labour in the second general election that would undoubtedly follow a general election with no sane result. Which leaves a more likely option as
1b. Take power, wait for the SNP to vote against something and call a second general election
Yes, that's what I meant.
It is bollox though and only could be from someone who does not have a clue on Scottish politics. They would not change votes to Labour. The only way Labour have a chance of recovery in Scotland is if they embrace Independence , otherwise crap or not SNP are coasting (not that they deserve it ) .
FPT Huge thanks to @Fairliered for pointing out you need to hold the test button to check fire alarms are interlinked.
That saved £220 has been added to my PB winnings stats.
Malkie doing the nags. Fairliered doing the tech support. Any other Scottish PBers want to do their bit for Eabhal’s bank balance?
I think it is time I really got a "Round Tuit" and got some smoke/heat alarms installed before Nicola fines me. Luckily my son's father-in-law is a retired electrician.
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
I think that's right, though I wouldn't rule out a bit of scare tactics on both sides at the moment - the naming of specific women candidates who the party might put up against him is in the same category.
I'm not clear about Labnour's rulebook position anyway. As far as I recall, any member who's been a member for a few years is entitled to put themselves forward, and as a condition must say they are willing to accept the whip. Corbyn's position is "sure, I'll accept it tomorrow" and the leadership's position is "only when you've taken down that FB post and apologised". I don't think the rulebook says you must be willing to take the whip AND you must demonstrate that you'll be offered it. So as a member in good standing I don't see why he couldn't simply apply for reselection.
It's true that the CLP is not as solidly left-wing as you might expect, but I've no doubt that he'd get reselected if he's able to apply.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
No party is going to go near the Tory party come the next election. The party is currently toxic and has form in completely screwing you up if you are the junior party (see the 2015 election).
FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.
Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.
Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.
For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report
a) could potentially be very expensive. OTOH how many people don’t have any, or insufficient, insurance?
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
No party is going to go near the Tory party come the next election. The party is currently toxic and has form in completely screwing you up if you are the junior party (see the 2015 election).
Yes, there's no chance of this, whatsoever, I would say.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
No party is going to go near the Tory party come the next election. The party is currently toxic and has form in completely screwing you up if you are the junior party (see the 2015 election).
Yes, there's no chance of this, whatsoever, I would say.
Would even the DUP trust the Tory party next time?
Labour wants to bring forward the vaccination of key workers alongside others in high risk groups.
As the Guernsey CMO patiently explained when asked, facing the same calls "who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"
"who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"
Yes, that is the money quote in all this.
The evidence was exceptionally clear - by far and away the biggest determinant of outcome, for the unvaccinated, was (and is) age.
It’s almost as if a lot of countries were padding their stats vaccinating people (eg children) who overall would gain only marginal benefit and then using these stats to claim that the success of the U.K. rollout was a mirage.
Does no-one in Australia own a map? With whom are they expecting to fight a *land* war?
I suspect the optimistic calculation is that they are buying favour and goodwill with the US defence establishment and having some tanks thrown in as a bonus.
Or the realization that protecting their interests in Asia Pacific is something they can only do as part of an alliance and that, in such an alliance, they need to pull their weight at least a bit, rather than just being a parasite.
Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees
Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.
Adults must minimise indoors contact.
Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated Up to 500 if vaccinated.
Universities can resume distance learning.
Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50
Private parties: max 20 must be seated.
Restrictions on sports events indoors
Etc
Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.
We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.
The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.
As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!
Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
No party is going to go near the Tory party come the next election. The party is currently toxic and has form in completely screwing you up if you are the junior party (see the 2015 election).
Yes, there's no chance of this, whatsoever, I would say.
Would even the DUP trust the Tory party next time?
What's in it for the DUP - the things they would want can't be achieved...
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
No party is going to go near the Tory party come the next election. The party is currently toxic and has form in completely screwing you up if you are the junior party (see the 2015 election).
After the LibDem experience with the considerably less toxic Tories of 2010, it would require a party of the clinically insane.
Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.
However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that
“England only legislation”?
So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.
Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.
In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name
That makes no sense.
It makes absolute sense.
The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK
The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority. The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.
SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy
Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.
He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.
Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.
Almost certainly true as of today.
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
No party is going to go near the Tory party come the next election. The party is currently toxic and has form in completely screwing you up if you are the junior party (see the 2015 election).
Precisely. So we are agreed it has no chance of happening.
Comments
Note we've seen similar clusters of false results for PCR with the lab error.
But I'm guessing lower.
Your second link says "For self-reported LFD positives that were matched to a confirmatory PCR, 87% were confirmed positive by a subsequent PCR test"
So link one is 94% (rounded) and link 2 is 87%. I can see the difference between those numbers, can't you?
Would 87% really match with 1/1000 sensitivity when that was based on 93.7% not 87%?
I'm willing to believe that the more focused process of going somewhere specifically to do the test could change the number of positives and negatives a little. Although I'd still err towards it increasing sensitivity rather than specificity, if anything.
This government has allowed HIV-positive people to join the armed services.
And on 18 December, Djokovic posed maskless during a photoshoot for the French newspaper Équipe. The paper says he wore a face mask during an interview but removed it for the photoshoot
The way he carried on you would think he didn't have covid....
C'mon.
Meanwhile the British army hasn't managed to procure a new armoured vehicle for 35 years.
- Viewership metrics for the 18-49 demo show tremendous declines in live and same-day viewing for primetime fall shows
- Scripted content has seen the biggest drops as consumption patterns change
- There are just 10 shows or special events with an average 18-49 demo rating greater than 1.0 in 2021, versus 77 in 2015
https://variety.com/vip/fading-ratings-how-far-broadcast-tv-has-tumbled-since-2015-1235124641/
On the opinion polls, it may well be that the Tories recover and sail to victory at the next GE.
But what's interesting is the change of mood on PB. It's not so long ago that virtually everybody (right, centre, and left) thought that a Tory GE victory in 2024 or whenever was a slam dunk. The accepted view was that Starmer was hopeless, the Shadow Cabinet crap, and Labour moribund. Whereas Boris, to coin a phrase, had his finger on the metaphorical clitoris of enough of the British people to get away with anything and serve at least two terms.
How that has changed. Many, if not most, posters seem to think a Labour minority government is reasonably likely, and even a handful think an outright Labour win is not inconceivable. Even HYUFD has been hinting that the Tories are unlikely to be in power next time around. The mood music has certainly changed, hasn't it?
Or didn't know that he had Covid.
Is the testing date the date he took the test (sample date) or the date he was given the result. There's often a few days gap between the two.
Didn't the Finnish PM go to a nightclub in similar circumstances not long ago? She said that she'd missed the text telling her to isolate so went to a nightclub until 4am instead.
Some people have a life rather than just panic about Covid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia
The "Oh shit" factor when an MBT rumbles up has been noted by a number of people in the context of peace keeping missions etc.
Makes the bet on Starmer for next PM stunning value.
1. Nigel is wrong. Following argument, he sees this and admits it. Easy to score.
2. Bart is wrong. Argument continues until heat death of the universe or Nigel getting bored with it.
Difficulty here is picking the point at which we're past where 1 would surely have happened and therefore conclude 2.
Documents sent to all players by Tennis Australia stated applications for medical exemptions must come ‘no later’ than December 10
https://www.scmp.com/sport/tennis/article/3162670/australian-open-novak-djokovics-lawyers-cite-covid-19-positive-medical
But it does mean that if you buy M1s they can be kept up to date with the latest threats etc for quite some years to come.
*Think complete rebuild.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
3m
When you bear in mind these figures, suddenly the fact that over 150k people died doesn't seem so bad - that might be only 1/10 of what might hv happened. It's actually pretty remarkable there were as few deaths as there have been. Frownie critics miss this crucial context.
SF 33% (+2)
FG 23% (-2)
FF 19% (+2)
Lab 4% (nc)
SD 4% (+1)
Grn 3% (-1)
PBP/S 3% (-1)
Aon 2% (-1)
oth 9% (nc)
(9 January; +/- change on last Ireland Thinks/Irish Mail on Sunday poll 12 December)
My best results are Sunak, Truss, Starmer, Hunt.
1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.
2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.
If it wasn't a legal requirement to isolate here, I wouldn't do so following a positive test. Hopefully it won't be soon.
Swedish Witty made the right call early on in terms of stating this will go on for 2-3 years at least. Where he was wrong is he thought it would take that long for a vaccine.
But if there's an answer for why confirmatory results were 93.7% which is the source for the 1/1000 claim but confirmatory results now are only 87% then I'd be curious what it is.
An increase of nearly 7% in the LFD results not being verified seems statistically significant to me. It doesn't seem plausible to wish it all away as PCR false negatives, since PCR false negatives were accounted for in the original evidence using a very different figure.
You really think its unusual or noteworthy that people haven't always isolated when instructed to do so?
That seems blissfully naive.
The Serbian authorities don't seem bothered by it either way.
This is surely the real shocker here.
He seems like someone who'd quite happily be in the minority.
If the Serbian authorities want to take it up with him they can do, but it doesn't seem like they're bothered either.
And now I really must go.
SF opposition 33%
FG/FF government 42%
It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.
*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-10/how-to-deal-covid19-supermarket-supply-shortages/100744160
(Well, technically, the estimate of 500,000 was wrong, but in the low direction)
If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.
It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD
fashionAs was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!
That saved £220 has been added to my PB winnings stats.
They're also offering 2/5 on SKS lasting until 2024 as Lab leader (pretty much the same thing as being so at next GE)
I make that 2.325/1 for the double, which they should offer as I can't see how they're related contingencies.
This represents a probability of 30% that BJ and SKS are leaders at the next election. Those who think it's much more likely should maybe pile on here.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/boris-johnson-specials/228803216/all-markets
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/labour-party-leadership/230126969/all-markets
1b. Take power, wait for the SNP to vote against something and call a second general election
But I suspect that a) the press will find it harder to big up Johnson than they did in 2019, and b) the press will find it harder to portray Starmer as an existential risk to the country than they did Corbyn in 2019.
Fairliered doing the tech support.
Any other Scottish PBers want to do their bit for Eabhal’s bank balance?
Err… no.
Bottom of another:
It's also complicated by the fact there are so many marginal seats, admittedly on the old boundaries. Nearly 100 seats have a majority of sub 5% and around 170 with sub 10% majorities. It doesn't take much - whether lower turnout, slight swings etc - to get an extreme result.
My personal view is that SMS is really hamstrung by three things: (1) his personality (2) the lack of understanding about what Labour actually stands for and (3) the cultural issues where, regardless of his words, there is inherent distrust of Labour from segments of the population. It is also worth pointing out that, while many on here have stated that BJ will find it difficult to get back his popularity when it is lost, the same goes for many of Labour's former voters who feel as though the party looks down on them as uneducated plebs. Once they go, you never get them back - your best hope is that they don't vote for your rivals.
And it's worth looking at Redcar, where you can clearly see that their are very happy to give other parties a chance but if those people fail to deliver they will return to Labour who at least deliver in part (which is always better than not at all).
Sounds like England is a… what’s the word… colony?
Here’s one view:
Can and should the Labour Party be saved?
- Labour has derived little dividend from pushing liberal reform and must prioritise working people
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/can-and-should-the-labour-party-be-saved-1.4189478
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55828160
Labour wants to bring forward the vaccination of key workers alongside others in high risk groups.
As the Guernsey CMO patiently explained when asked, facing the same calls "who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"
If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.
Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?
Murray's tweet about Farage was good.
Luckily my son's father-in-law is a retired electrician.
I'm not clear about Labnour's rulebook position anyway. As far as I recall, any member who's been a member for a few years is entitled to put themselves forward, and as a condition must say they are willing to accept the whip. Corbyn's position is "sure, I'll accept it tomorrow" and the leadership's position is "only when you've taken down that FB post and apologised". I don't think the rulebook says you must be willing to take the whip AND you must demonstrate that you'll be offered it. So as a member in good standing I don't see why he couldn't simply apply for reselection.
It's true that the CLP is not as solidly left-wing as you might expect, but I've no doubt that he'd get reselected if he's able to apply.
Yes, that is the money quote in all this.
The evidence was exceptionally clear - by far and away the biggest determinant of outcome, for the unvaccinated, was (and is) age.
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/you-dont-need-a-mentorfind-a-nemesis
It looks like the start of a fight over what can be retained by the security bureaucrats,
A data ‘black hole’: Europol ordered to delete vast store of personal data
EU police body accused of unlawfully holding information and aspiring to become an NSA-style mass surveillance agency
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/a-data-black-hole-europol-ordered-to-delete-vast-store-of-personal-data