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.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
They’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds. Even made a big noise about how they had the power to send him home (regardless of court decision) and then… didn’t.
Went to the supermarket yesterday. Could have thought myself in Brexit Britain - no fresh groceries at all save herbs and pre-packed salad. No berries, oranges, apples, pears, bananas, tomatoes, onions, potatoes, peppers, leeks, cabbages, avocados, grapes ...
Combination of people panic-buying for the (smallish) ice-storm we had over the weekend, and the delivery trucks deciding to stay at home.
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?
Yes for me I would err on the side of caution , pretty rare but you just never know. For most people it would not be desperately expensive , they can buy the sealed battery types if they do not want mains work but better than potential alternatives.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
Hang on.
All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.
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.
Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
Hang on.
All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.
I understand the immigration minister had a four hour window to reach a decision - and declined to use his discretionary powers
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?
Yes for me I would err on the side of caution , pretty rare but you just never know. For most people it would not be desperately expensive , they can buy the sealed battery types if they do not want mains work but better than potential alternatives.
I found the Which? report on fire alarms very useful in conjunction with one of the specialist supply companies who has a special section for the Scottish regs on their website. I picked one particular sealed battery alarm which Which recommended and I simply bought that and the complementary type to have a linked set of heat and smoke alarms. The CO monitors don't need to be linked, so I just got what Which recommended. (Quite a lot of duds BTW, Which found, from no-name firms on certain websites, though.)
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
Hang on.
All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.
I understand the immigration minister had a four hour window to reach a decision - and declined to use his discretionary powers
You seem to understand incorrectly - the 4 hours were to take him back in for questioning.
If Australia decide to throw him out for lying or falsified evidence they can do that at any point.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
Hang on.
All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.
I understand the immigration minister had a four hour window to reach a decision - and declined to use his discretionary powers
You seem to understand incorrectly - the 4 hours were to take him back in for questioning.
If Australia decide to throw him out for lying or falsified evidence they can do that at any point.
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
Any reason why England only legislation can’t be conducted on Monday and Tuesday, with UK wide legislation conducted on Wednesday, Thursday on Friday?
Having an English parliament using the HoC facilities? It's possible, but you'd still have to elect a separate load of Members of the English Parliament (yeah, that needs a better acronym) otherwise the Scottish separatists would endlessly whinge about their MPs being second class.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
They’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds. Even made a big noise about how they had the power to send him home (regardless of court decision) and then… didn’t.
I confidently predicted that they wouldn't let Djokovidiot in. I hope they still throw him out.
I gather the immigration minister who can still do so is called Alex Hawke.
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?
I'm sorry, but the idea of a National Coalition between Labour and Tories is a non-starter. It wouldn't just be the far left members that desert Labour - it would be most of us. And the same for the Tories, no doubt.
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.
Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.
If he has any sense he will claim this has screwed up his preparation and withdraw for that reason, because if he gets to play this isn't going to go away for him. Booing in the stands for instance? Won't look good.
I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Any reason why England only legislation can’t be conducted on Monday and Tuesday, with UK wide legislation conducted on Wednesday, Thursday on Friday?
Having an English parliament using the HoC facilities? It's possible, but you'd still have to elect a separate load of Members of the English Parliament (yeah, that needs a better acronym) otherwise the Scottish separatists would endlessly whinge about their MPs being second class.
That has been the case ever since September 2014, the second class bit. Though it's not actually been much of an issue given the abstentionism of the SNP.
It's much more of an issue for Labour or the LDs or the Tories. lI have a theory that Mr Gove cancelled EVEL because he (a) wanted to be a MP for a Scottish constituency, or thought he could get e.g Banff and Buchan or Aberdeen off the Brexit triumph, and (b) didn't want to lose the chance to succeed Mr Johnson as PM. Not sure that it makes sense, but nothing else we discussed does.
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?
I'm sorry, but the idea of a National Coalition between Labour and Tories is a non-starter. It wouldn't just be the far left members that desert Labour - it would be most of us. And the same for the Tories, no doubt.
Look what happened to the LDs and Labour in Scotland. They've never recovered from 2010 and 2014 respectively.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
That's the point I was questioning. As I understand the rules, you have to be a member, on the electoral roll and willing to take the whip. There's nothing there about any decision by the Chief Whip not to offer it at the moment. He's perfectly eligible. The Chief Whip might choose to continue to refuse to offer the whip after an election, but that's a matter for him.
Obviuosly I'm being a rules lawyer here, but that's what it may hinge on.
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
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?
I'm sorry, but the idea of a National Coalition between Labour and Tories is a non-starter. It wouldn't just be the far left members that desert Labour - it would be most of us. And the same for the Tories, no doubt.
Well, it might actually work quite well for the Conservatives in the long run, since it could be fatal for the Labour party in the short to medium run, but yes: my point is that it's a non-starter.
Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.
Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).
In the US we have Urgent Care Clinics - walk-in locations for things like that. E.g. when our dog accidentally bit me, that's where I went for a tetanus shot. Does the UK have similar?
Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.
Same here. My Dad called his GP, and was triaged, remotely diagnosed with a chest infection. He was prescribed anti biotics. They did little good. He got worse. Kept little food down. He actually had pneumonia and ended up going to hospital because of it.
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.
Same here. My Dad called his GP, and was triaged, remotely diagnosed with a chest infection. He was prescribed anti biotics. They did little good. He got worse. Kept little food down. He actually had pneumonia and ended up going to hospital because of it.
Yes. Although the exact same thing happened to me some years ago despite having seen a GP in person twice. 15 days in the hozzie after being twice told I had "mild flu". I am a bit sceptical of the word mild now.
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).
Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).
Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?
Here's the thing - its a direct quote from a minister reported to the BBC. But isn't backed up by the actual regulations which have 1st February only. Fun times ahead!
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).
Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?
Here's the thing - its a direct quote from a minister reported to the BBC. But isn't backed up by the actual regulations which have 1st February only. Fun times ahead!
DON'T TELL ME SCOTTISH MINISTERS ARE AS DYSFUNCTIONAL IS ENGLISH ONES!!
Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.
Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).
Im covid positive unfortunately
111 might also be an option. My brother, at end of Covid isolation after a positive, tried to see GP as he was really struggling, after having felt better the previous two days. Fobbed off. Ended up calling 111, 111 doctor suspected pneumonia from a secondary infection (was correct, as it turned out), 111 doctor contacted GP and told GP to pull finger out, brother was called by GP and invited in as soon as possible.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.
Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).
In the US we have Urgent Care Clinics - walk-in locations for things like that. E.g. when our dog accidentally bit me, that's where I went for a tetanus shot. Does the UK have similar?
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
He'll treat the first few rounds as his warm up. He'll win it if he plays.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).
Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?
Here's the thing - its a direct quote from a minister reported to the BBC. But isn't backed up by the actual regulations which have 1st February only. Fun times ahead!
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?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).
Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?
Here's the thing - its a direct quote from a minister reported to the BBC. But isn't backed up by the actual regulations which have 1st February only. Fun times ahead!
DON'T TELL ME SCOTTISH MINISTERS ARE AS DYSFUNCTIONAL IS ENGLISH ONES!!
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
Do you think the BJ PM at next election 11/8 and SKS Lab Leader until at least 2024 2/5 with Ladbrokes are good value?
I thought it looked like Swedish ICU Covid occupancy was falling after a rapid rise so I am surprised by the new restrictions.
Swedish ICU Occupancy
Looks like Covid Admissions have started increasing again in Gauteng in SA. Overall it looks like Deaths are still rising and that Admissions for the country have levelled off after falling a bit.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
He'll treat the first few rounds as his warm up. He'll win it if he plays.
Not sure at what stage a putative Murray-Nole face off might occur, but would be top entertainment, specially with Farage in the crowd unfurling a Serbian flag at a likely Nole victory.
I thought it looked like Swedish ICU Covid occupancy was falling after a rapid rise so I am surprised by the new restrictions.
Swedish ICU Occupancy
Looks like Covid Admissions have started increasing again in Gauteng in SA. Overall it looks like Deaths are still rising and that Admissions for the country have levelled off after falling a bit.
Swedish data is often somewhat lagged - could this apply to ICU data as well?
The point of being a minor party is you do not commit to anything before the election. Otherwise you will lose all bargaining power afterwards.
After the election, it is the arithmetic that determines what is possible.
So, it is not true that the Tories are uncoalitionable. If they are the largest party & short by a bit, then they are very coalitionable.
The DUP will (if their support is needed) do what is best for the DUP.
They will hawk their sorry asses to all buyers and see what is the best price. And they will go with the best price.
And the arithmetic may mean that there is only one buyer of their sorry asses.
Just because Boris is uncoalitionable does not mean the Tories are.
Even the LDs would probably only consider a deal with the Tories if they not only replaced Boris with Sunak or Hunt but also aligned the UK more closely with the EEA or a CU. That would obviously be a non starter with most Tory voters and MPs and would split the party which some Leavers going back to Farage and RefUK again.
So realistically the only deal the Tories could do as largest party is with the DUP, provided they initiated Article 16. Unless Starmer agreed a deal with them on English legislation to avoid having to deal with the SNP if Labour + SNP were more than Tories + DUP
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.
I don't think they were padding their stats: they had lots of vaccines, and they reckoned that minimising community transmission (especially pre-Omicron) was the best way to get rid of Covid.
What's unique about the UK is just how rare vaccine scepticism is among older people; other than Portugal, I don't think any other country comes close to UK vaccination rates for the over 60s.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.
More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.
Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.
I thought it looked like Swedish ICU Covid occupancy was falling after a rapid rise so I am surprised by the new restrictions.
Swedish ICU Occupancy
Looks like Covid Admissions have started increasing again in Gauteng in SA. Overall it looks like Deaths are still rising and that Admissions for the country have levelled off after falling a bit.
Swedish data is often somewhat lagged - could this apply to ICU data as well?
The ICU data here ( https://www.icuregswe.org/data--resultat/covid-19-i-svensk-intensivvard/ ) is basically bang up to date. From my watching it only gets revised up or down tiny numbers (as opposed to the ICU admissions chart of the main ArcGis page which has the same laggy updates as the rest of Swedend data does). The thing to watch out for is the orange bars - that's represents an estimate due to a department hasn't reported any numbers that day.
For context here is Sweden's Covid occupancy over the whole pandemic
So at the new year it looked like they were heading for a real bad time given how ICU was surging up.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
He'll treat the first few rounds as his warm up. He'll win it if he plays.
2.86 was available this morning - with money back if he doesn't start the tournament.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
Do you think the BJ PM at next election 11/8 and SKS Lab Leader until at least 2024 2/5 with Ladbrokes are good value?
Yes.
And the reason is a simple one: Conservative MPs won't simply jettison Johnson because he's "a bit unpopular". He either needs to be extremely unpopular (think consistent 10-15 deficits in the polls, plus losing a whole bunch of traditional Tory councils) or to be quite unpopular and there to be an obvious King over the Water.
Thatcher in 1990 was done in by there being an obvious challenger (Heseltine) who appeared to turn a ten point Labour lead into a small Conservative one.
Major, on the other hand, survived because there was no clear alternative.
Who is the alternative? Who is the charismatic challenger willing to stick the knife in?
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.
I don't think they were padding their stats: they had lots of vaccines, and they reckoned that minimising community transmission (especially pre-Omicron) was the best way to get rid of Covid.
What's unique about the UK is just how rare vaccine scepticism is among older people; other than Portugal, I don't think any other country comes close to UK vaccination rates for the over 60s.
I think it was a combination of a heavy push by GPs - many elderly people treasure their relationship with their GP and trust them and by the way that the age cohorts were done in sequence that pushed take-up up in the UK.
From what I understand, there was a heavy push *within* the vaccination organisation (in the UK) that vaccinating older people was more valuable.
In other countries I think there was a less emphasis on the value of a vaccination for an older person vs younger.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
Pink Order marches through predominantly homophobic residential areas?
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.
Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.
If he has any sense he will claim this has screwed up his preparation and withdraw for that reason, because if he gets to play this isn't going to go away for him. Booing in the stands for instance? Won't look good.
I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.
He's used to playing against the crowd though. But, yes it might be on another level this time. Also the disrupted prep and leakage of energy. For these ressons I've layed him at 2.7.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Cost of living vs real incomes.
I'd expect Labour to start pulling out a bigger lead as taxes bite, and inflation and interest rates rise. It won't happen overnight and it won't be a smooth line but I'd expect the trend to be clear over the course of a year.
And Johnson will continue to behave as if the rules don't apply to him because as far as he's concerned, his position is proof that they don't.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.
"True & Fair" sounds more like an accountancy firm than a political party.
I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.
"True & Fair" sounds more like an accountancy firm than a political party.
I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.
From the USA, I give you both the Republicans and the Democrats.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.
"True & Fair" sounds more like an accountancy firm than a political party.
I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
I have heard the Northern Ireland scenario before, but it seems to me to be predicated on the proportion of Americans willing to enforce their political ideology through violence being similar to that of Northern Ireland. I just can't imagine a future class room discussing a 2nd US Civil War as being caused by arguments about misinformation on Twitter. I suppose there's no reason why not but it would just be so stupid. Causes of the First Meme War: Some sweaty nerd posted a preposterous conspiracy theory on 4chan and people believed it because their political candidate lost... Anyway, I'm starting to convince myself it's possible so I'm off to actually read the linked article.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
Already primed and ready to go
vs
Those lads were ahead of the curve when it comes to the wearing of face coverings in an indoor setting.
It will be interesting to see if she offers anything interesting beyond the predictable "let's re-join the EU".
We are told "The True and Fair Party will advocate for vital changes to the practice and machinery of government and I look forward to laying out the first part of that vision." That might well be worth reading - we desperately need to reverse the power grab of Whitehall from Ministers and restore the sovereignty of Parliament as well as strengthening the accountability of local democracy.
Those who argued leaving the EU would lead to greater sovereignty for the UK presumably meant decisions taken by and scrutinised by Parliament not handing control to Ministers and unelected civil servants.
Unfortunately, Gina Miller has a reputation which means a lot of what she says will be ignored because she had the temerity to challenge the "will of the people" though she was more about challenging how that will was implemented.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
Already primed and ready to go
vs
Those lads were ahead of the curve when it comes to the wearing of face coverings in an indoor setting.
The point of being a minor party is you do not commit to anything before the election. Otherwise you will lose all bargaining power afterwards.
After the election, it is the arithmetic that determines what is possible.
So, it is not true that the Tories are uncoalitionable. If they are the largest party & short by a bit, then they are very coalitionable.
The DUP will (if their support is needed) do what is best for the DUP.
They will hawk their sorry asses to all buyers and see what is the best price. And they will go with the best price.
And the arithmetic may mean that there is only one buyer of their sorry asses.
Just because Boris is uncoalitionable does not mean the Tories are.
Even the LDs would probably only consider a deal with the Tories if they not only replaced Boris with Sunak or Hunt but also aligned the UK more closely with the EEA or a CU. That would obviously be a non starter with most Tory voters and MPs and would split the party which some Leavers going back to Farage and RefUK again.
So realistically the only deal the Tories could do as largest party is with the DUP, provided they initiated Article 16. Unless Starmer agreed a deal with them on English legislation to avoid having to deal with the SNP if Labour + SNP were more than Tories + DUP
I think it possible they'd also require that hell freeze over.
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.
Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.
"True & Fair" sounds more like an accountancy firm than a political party.
I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.
As a counterpoint "True & Fair" works well, I think. "Untrue & Unfair" is a succinct summing up of where today's Conservative Party is at.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Cost of living vs real incomes.
I'd expect Labour to start pulling out a bigger lead as taxes bite, and inflation and interest rates rise. It won't happen overnight and it won't be a smooth line but I'd expect the trend to be clear over the course of a year.
And Johnson will continue to behave as if the rules don't apply to him because as far as he's concerned, his position is proof that they don't.
In that case though - what does Sunak or others offer that solves a cost of living crisis?
They would all be better off letting Boris cop the blame at the next election and seeking the leadership afterwards because otherwise some of the election loss would be laid at their feet.
@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.
More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.
Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.
Cheers for the reply @darkage, appreciated. I wondered what your position was.
Generally I agree. If we banned people for posting stupid things there wouldn't be many people here and that might well include me. My argument would be:
a) Track record b) It was blindingly obvious c) The source was quite clear and despicable (I actually have no idea how they get away with this stuff. I assume the liable laws are quite lax in the USA) d) Moonshine defended the posting of it when challenged claiming it wasn't conspiracy stuff. S/he knew what s/he was doing and didn't backdown (on the contrary in fact s/he went on the attack)
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
The Armageddon scenario might be the Conservatives losing Kensington & Chelsea to Labour......
There is no such seat.
On the new boundaries Kensington and Westbourne will be safe Labour but Chelsea and Fulham West would still be Tory but go Labour if they won most seats.
It is a long way from 1997 when Kensington and Chelsea was the safest Conservative seat left in the UK, hence Portillo went for it in 1999 when Alan Clark died
Comments
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
They’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds. Even made a big noise about how they had the power to send him home (regardless of court decision) and then… didn’t.
Combination of people panic-buying for the (smallish) ice-storm we had over the weekend, and the delivery trucks deciding to stay at home.
All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.
Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.
Could be wrong though of course.
If Australia decide to throw him out for lying or falsified evidence they can do that at any point.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
I gather the immigration minister who can still do so is called Alex Hawke.
Hawke: I rule out.
I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.
It's much more of an issue for Labour or the LDs or the Tories. lI have a theory that Mr Gove cancelled EVEL because he (a) wanted to be a MP for a Scottish constituency, or thought he could get e.g Banff and Buchan or Aberdeen off the Brexit triumph, and (b) didn't want to lose the chance to succeed Mr Johnson as PM. Not sure that it makes sense, but nothing else we discussed does.
Obviuosly I'm being a rules lawyer here, but that's what it may hinge on.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
After the election, it is the arithmetic that determines what is possible.
So, it is not true that the Tories are uncoalitionable. If they are the largest party & short by a bit, then they are very coalitionable.
The DUP will (if their support is needed) do what is best for the DUP.
They will hawk their sorry asses to all buyers and see what is the best price. And they will go with the best price.
And the arithmetic may mean that there is only one buyer of their sorry asses.
Just because Boris is uncoalitionable does not mean the Tories are.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
15 days in the hozzie after being twice told I had "mild flu". I am a bit sceptical of the word mild now.
Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?
This is your health we're talking about here.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/skyguyinva/status/1478476198317637637?s=21
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
I thought it looked like Swedish ICU Covid occupancy was falling after a rapid rise so I am surprised by the new restrictions.
Swedish ICU Occupancy
Looks like Covid Admissions have started increasing again in Gauteng in SA. Overall it looks like Deaths are still rising and that Admissions for the country have levelled off after falling a bit.
So realistically the only deal the Tories could do as largest party is with the DUP, provided they initiated Article 16. Unless Starmer agreed a deal with them on English legislation to avoid having to deal with the SNP if Labour + SNP were more than Tories + DUP
What's unique about the UK is just how rare vaccine scepticism is among older people; other than Portugal, I don't think any other country comes close to UK vaccination rates for the over 60s.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.
More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.
Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.
The thing to watch out for is the orange bars - that's represents an estimate due to a department hasn't reported any numbers that day.
For context here is Sweden's Covid occupancy over the whole pandemic
So at the new year it looked like they were heading for a real bad time given how ICU was surging up.
I’m not joking (much anyway). They lost the first time round.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1547648/gina-miller-news-new-political-party-true-and-fair-party-brexit
And the reason is a simple one: Conservative MPs won't simply jettison Johnson because he's "a bit unpopular". He either needs to be extremely unpopular (think consistent 10-15 deficits in the polls, plus losing a whole bunch of traditional Tory councils) or to be quite unpopular and there to be an obvious King over the Water.
Thatcher in 1990 was done in by there being an obvious challenger (Heseltine) who appeared to turn a ten point Labour lead into a small Conservative one.
Major, on the other hand, survived because there was no clear alternative.
Who is the alternative? Who is the charismatic challenger willing to stick the knife in?
From what I understand, there was a heavy push *within* the vaccination organisation (in the UK) that vaccinating older people was more valuable.
In other countries I think there was a less emphasis on the value of a vaccination for an older person vs younger.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
vs
An infected surgical wound might be an A&E job? Been watching mine like a hawk.
I'd expect Labour to start pulling out a bigger lead as taxes bite, and inflation and interest rates rise. It won't happen overnight and it won't be a smooth line but I'd expect the trend to be clear over the course of a year.
And Johnson will continue to behave as if the rules don't apply to him because as far as he's concerned, his position is proof that they don't.
I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.
You could call it "Quickfire questions".
I do tend to agree with you though.
Complying with "group of six" rule too!
We are told "The True and Fair Party will advocate for vital changes to the practice and machinery of government and I look forward to laying out the first part of that vision." That might well be worth reading - we desperately need to reverse the power grab of Whitehall from Ministers and restore the sovereignty of Parliament as well as strengthening the accountability of local democracy.
Those who argued leaving the EU would lead to greater sovereignty for the UK presumably meant decisions taken by and scrutinised by Parliament not handing control to Ministers and unelected civil servants.
Unfortunately, Gina Miller has a reputation which means a lot of what she says will be ignored because she had the temerity to challenge the "will of the people" though she was more about challenging how that will was implemented.
You seem quite invested ?
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A
2) He should take Option B
3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
They would all be better off letting Boris cop the blame at the next election and seeking the leadership afterwards because otherwise some of the election loss would be laid at their feet.
Generally I agree. If we banned people for posting stupid things there wouldn't be many people here and that might well include me. My argument would be:
a) Track record
b) It was blindingly obvious
c) The source was quite clear and despicable (I actually have no idea how they get away with this stuff. I assume the liable laws are quite lax in the USA)
d) Moonshine defended the posting of it when challenged claiming it wasn't conspiracy stuff. S/he knew what s/he was doing and didn't backdown (on the contrary in fact s/he went on the attack)
On the new boundaries Kensington and Westbourne will be safe Labour but Chelsea and Fulham West would still be Tory but go Labour if they won most seats.
It is a long way from 1997 when Kensington and Chelsea was the safest Conservative seat left in the UK, hence Portillo went for it in 1999 when Alan Clark died
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/bdy2023_lond_summary.html