Corbyn, not Boris, was the big driver of LAB switchers at GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

System

Corbyn, not Boris, was the big driver of LAB switchers at GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

The above is from the Opinium day of the General Election survey that it carried out in December 2019 and a particular area of Interest is why the LAB vote slumped so dramatically. It will be recalled that what was then Corbyn’s party saw its vote share drop from 40% at the previous General Election to 33%.

Read the full story here

Malmesbury

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Pulpstar said:

Putin:
Russia did all it could to resolve Ukraine crisis in a peaceful manner.
US can rip up security commitments it gives us.

"did"

Doesn't sound good

Its not sounded good for a while. Like the Grand old Duke of York he's marched his troops to the top of the hill, but I don't think he can march them back down again, so it will have to be a conflict.

The mad thing is Russia could never defeat the West if we allied against him and were willing to back it up with force to protect Ukraine. Russia's army is decrepit, weak, ill-mannered and ill-equipped. NATO could easily stop him into the ground if it came to a conventional war.

Only if all NATO forces combined together.

The Russian army is still the 3rd most powerful in the world after the US and China's

Why would all of NATO combined be necessary when the US alone is more powerful than Russia?

And Russia's "power" is vastly overrated. Most of the 150k "troops" are poorly disciplined conscripts.

If Trump got back in in 2024 he would abandon NATO as he is pals with Putin and just concentrate on containing China.

Europe would be left to defend itself. Russia could beat each individual European army on its own, it could not beat them if the French, German, Polish, UK militaries combined however. So increasing defence spending by all NATO members in Europe is vital.

Russia actually has 1,014,000 professional troops and 2 million reserves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces

That's not 1 million professional troops - that's 1 million active. In other words professionals + the current "classes" of conscripts.

Malmesbury

On topic:

The data gives us the reason that they didn't vote Labour. It doesn't give us the reason they switched to Conservative.

I would suggest that getting a big swing is nearly never just a negative "vote against" - the other side has to make a good pitch as well.

Roger

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

CarlottaVance

Thread on the Kremlin soap opera:

Putin is running this Security Council meeting like a Netflix drama. Starts by saying basically we're all going to decide the fate of Ukraine today, then lots of plot filling from the others before we get the answer.

Extraordinary way to find out the future fate of Europe.

Putin: Every one of you knows, and I specially want to underline it... I did not discuss any of this with you before. I did not ask your opinion before. And this is happening spontaneously, because I wanted to hear your opinions without any preliminary preparation.

Aaaaaaaa

https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1495764374409166849?s=21

Andy_JS

What time will Johnson be making the Covid announcement?

Malmesbury

Roger said:

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

Many people have a different persona in 1-to-1 situations than their "professional" persona.

If I had a pound for all the stories (some in person) of Catholics who said that when they went to Ian Paisley as a constituency MP, he did right by them.... well, it didn't stop him being a raving anti-Catholic bigot in the wider world.

BartholomewRoberts

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

CarlottaVance

In topic - I think even more damaging to Corbyn was his reaction to Salisbury which reinforced the perception that he is unpatriotic and anti-West - a charge that cannot be laid at Starmer’s door.

Roger

Malmesbury said:

On topic:

The data gives us the reason that they didn't vote Labour. It doesn't give us the reason they switched to Conservative.

I would suggest that getting a big swing is nearly never just a negative "vote against" - the other side has to make a good pitch as well.

The good pitch was if don't choose this one you're certain to get the other. Quite powerful enough in this instance

dixiedean

Andy_JS said:

What time will Johnson be making the Covid announcement?

4:30 was the plan. Assuming it gets through Cabinet.

HYUFD

This is misleading polling.

Yes most defectors from Labour from 2017 to 2019 went LD not Labour because of Corbyn. However it was the 1.2% of voters, almost all Leavers in the Redwall, who went from Labour to Tory to get Brexit done with Boris and the Labour voters who went to the Brexit Party to get Brexit done who won the Tories the majority they failed to get against Corbyn in 2017. As the chart shows they went away from Labour because of Brexit (plus immigration in the case of Brexit Party voters), not just Corbyn, whereas Labour switchers to LD were almost all due to Corbyn and his non Brexit policies

CarlottaVance

We've confirmed @john_marquee's geolocation (47.2739, 38.3309) which places this video inside separatist territory right on the border with Russia. This appears to be yet another fabricated videos for another false flag. Seeing a pattern yet?

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1495775073906610180

Malmesbury

Roger said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic:

The data gives us the reason that they didn't vote Labour. It doesn't give us the reason they switched to Conservative.

I would suggest that getting a big swing is nearly never just a negative "vote against" - the other side has to make a good pitch as well.

The good pitch was if don't choose this one you're certain to get the other. Quite powerful enough in this instance

No - I meant that the other side has to make a positive pitch that people actually "buy" into.

1997 happened not just because the Conservatives self destructed. It happened because Blair made a pitch (aka New Labour) that a lot of people bought into.

eek

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Roger

CarlottaVance said:

In topic - I think even more damaging to Corbyn was his reaction to Salisbury which reinforced the perception that he is unpatriotic and anti-West - a charge that cannot be laid at Starmer’s door.

I'm waiting for Starmer to go mooning and show us his newly tattooed union jack buttocks.

algarkirk

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

dixiedean

Are they talking about fur and foie gras?

CarlottaVance

The audience and actors at the Putin theater don’t look too happy, but everything now points at 🇷🇺 abandoning the Minsk agreement and recognize their puppet statelets as two independent states.

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1495775068877692930

Pro_Rata

Thinking of it, every single vote switch I have made over the last 6 years across GE, local, EU and Metro - 6 vote switches in all from the previous same body election - have been driven by the need to avoid voting for Corbyn, to more strongly protest vote against Corbyn, or because of the removal of that need.

BartholomewRoberts

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

NerysHughes

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

As is the 2017 election when Corbyn got 40%

CarlottaVance

Seems like Putin’s national security meeting on Donbas isn’t live. Videotaped

Russian Defense Minister’s watch indicates it is 12:47pm.

Moscow local time is 6pm now

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1495775697121517570

HYUFD

NerysHughes said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

As is the 2017 election when Corbyn got 40%

Indeed, never forget Corbyn got the highest Labour voteshare since Blair in 2001 in 2017.

He got a lot of voters to vote against him, hence the Tories got their highest voteshare since 1987 in 2017 and their highest voteshare since 1979 in 2019 but he got a lot to vote for him too. Even in 2019 he got a higher voteshare than Brown and Ed Miliband

NorthofStoke

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

I'm pretty certain that (even?) May would have beaten Corbyn handsomely in a re-run. When May lost her majority a lot of voters thought they had the luxury of a protest vote and could vote Labour to stop a big Tory majority. There was also a significant percentage of not engaged voters who didn't fully realise the nature of Corbyn.

BartholomewRoberts

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

Precisely my point. Boris in six months transformed the Tories from unelectedable to electable in the eyes of roughly half of all voters.

The fact that Corbyn was toxic was every bit as true when Labour were getting ten point leads. The opposition being toxic isn't good enough, if you are too though.

Something all parties, including the Tories, would do well to remember going forwards. And why Boris should now go.

FF43

BartholomewRoberts said:

FF43 said:

The Government decision to move from free to paid for Covid testing is illogical. Either it's worth doing, in which case they pay for it as they do for any other diagnostic testing on the NHS, or we no longer need to know who has Covid, in which case government advises against the test.

It raises the suspicion that the real reason for making testing more costly/difficult is stop incidents being reported. so it can be covered up.

That doesn't make any sense.

Its not free as its not necessary anymore, but if anyone chooses to go to a pharmacy or elsewhere for the service they should have the right to pay, if that's their free choice.

On the contrary. Not determining whether a test is useful but deciding we will charge you for it, makes no sense. Do people need to know if they have Covid, is the determination the government needs to make and which it is failing to do.

Malmesbury

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

In topic - I think even more damaging to Corbyn was his reaction to Salisbury which reinforced the perception that he is unpatriotic and anti-West - a charge that cannot be laid at Starmer’s door.

I'm waiting for Starmer to go mooning and show us his newly tattooed union jack buttocks.

Corbyn is (and wanted to be) a hard core Negative Nationalist. What they called, in the USSR, a Useful Idiot.

Which meant that when it came to

- The regime using chemical weapons in Syria
- Russia murdering people in the UK
- Russia shooting down an Malaysian airliner

he reflexively took the Russia side.

"Never My Country Right or Wrong, Always My Countries Enemies" is just as stupid as "Always My Country Right Or Wrong"

tlg86

James O'Brien showing what an utter moron he is:

https://order-order.com/2022/02/21/james-obriens-testing-cost-confusion/

CarlottaVance

Cabinet wrapped up with agreement on Covid plan after this morning's scrap over funding for tests - PM told ministers 'we need the best possible eyes in the crow's nest to spot the iceberg' - retaining effective system to spot any new problems, rather than mass testing

The ONS Covid Survey will stay, it's understood, but on a slightly smaller scale - precise detail of the testing regime that stays in place going to be really important


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1495778863489683462

MikeSmithson

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

Precisely my point. Boris in six months transformed the Tories from unelectedable to electable in the eyes of roughly half of all voters.

The fact that Corbyn was toxic was every bit as true when Labour were getting ten point leads. The opposition being toxic isn't good enough, if you are too though.

Something all parties, including the Tories, would do well to remember going forwards. And why Boris should now go.

Thus is bollocks. LAB never got any leads under Corbyn.

Daveyboy1961

tlg86 said:

James O'Brien showing what an utter moron he is:

https://order-order.com/2022/02/21/james-obriens-testing-cost-confusion/

At least he apologises for mistakes and corrects the record

BartholomewRoberts

FF43 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FF43 said:

The Government decision to move from free to paid for Covid testing is illogical. Either it's worth doing, in which case they pay for it as they do for any other diagnostic testing on the NHS, or we no longer need to know who has Covid, in which case government advises against the test.

It raises the suspicion that the real reason for making testing more costly/difficult is stop incidents being reported. so it can be covered up.

That doesn't make any sense.

Its not free as its not necessary anymore, but if anyone chooses to go to a pharmacy or elsewhere for the service they should have the right to pay, if that's their free choice.

On the contrary. Not determining whether a test is useful but deciding we will charge you for it, makes no sense. Do people need to know if they have Covid, is the determination the government needs to make and which it is failing to do.

No people don't need to know, that's why they're not being offered free tests.

However just because you don't need to know something, doesn't mean you should be prevented from finding it out if you pay for it. You can choose to get all sorts of diagnostic tests that you don't need if you pay privately like '23 and me' and other stuff like it, why should unprescribed Covid tests not be treated exactly the same?

Malmesbury

MikeSmithson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

Precisely my point. Boris in six months transformed the Tories from unelectedable to electable in the eyes of roughly half of all voters.

The fact that Corbyn was toxic was every bit as true when Labour were getting ten point leads. The opposition being toxic isn't good enough, if you are too though.

Something all parties, including the Tories, would do well to remember going forwards. And why Boris should now go.

Thus is bollocks. LAB never got any leads under Corbyn.

errrrr???

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/boost-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-take-eightpoint-poll-lead-over-conservatives

Am I missing something?

MikeSmithson

Malmesbury said:

MikeSmithson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

Precisely my point. Boris in six months transformed the Tories from unelectedable to electable in the eyes of roughly half of all voters.

The fact that Corbyn was toxic was every bit as true when Labour were getting ten point leads. The opposition being toxic isn't good enough, if you are too though.

Something all parties, including the Tories, would do well to remember going forwards. And why Boris should now go.

Thus is bollocks. LAB never got any leads under Corbyn.

errrrr???

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/boost-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-take-eightpoint-poll-lead-over-conservatives

Am I missing something?

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

BartholomewRoberts

tlg86 said:

James O'Brien showing what an utter moron he is:

https://order-order.com/2022/02/21/james-obriens-testing-cost-confusion/

LOL that's hilarious. 🤣

I wondered how long it would be for the usual suspects to switch from screaming about how useless Test and Trace is, to how valuable Testing is, without realising it's the same frigging thing. 🤣

Malmesbury

MikeSmithson said:

Malmesbury said:

MikeSmithson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

Precisely my point. Boris in six months transformed the Tories from unelectedable to electable in the eyes of roughly half of all voters.

The fact that Corbyn was toxic was every bit as true when Labour were getting ten point leads. The opposition being toxic isn't good enough, if you are too though.

Something all parties, including the Tories, would do well to remember going forwards. And why Boris should now go.

Thus is bollocks. LAB never got any leads under Corbyn.

errrrr???

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/boost-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-take-eightpoint-poll-lead-over-conservatives

Am I missing something?

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

So we are talking about pre election 2017? OK....

I think that wasn't clear to everyone....

FF43

BartholomewRoberts said:

FF43 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FF43 said:

The Government decision to move from free to paid for Covid testing is illogical. Either it's worth doing, in which case they pay for it as they do for any other diagnostic testing on the NHS, or we no longer need to know who has Covid, in which case government advises against the test.

It raises the suspicion that the real reason for making testing more costly/difficult is stop incidents being reported. so it can be covered up.

That doesn't make any sense.

Its not free as its not necessary anymore, but if anyone chooses to go to a pharmacy or elsewhere for the service they should have the right to pay, if that's their free choice.

On the contrary. Not determining whether a test is useful but deciding we will charge you for it, makes no sense. Do people need to know if they have Covid, is the determination the government needs to make and which it is failing to do.

No people don't need to know, that's why they're not being offered free tests.

However just because you don't need to know something, doesn't mean you should be prevented from finding it out if you pay for it. You can choose to get all sorts of diagnostic tests that you don't need if you pay privately like '23 and me' and other stuff like it, why should unprescribed Covid tests not be treated exactly the same?

If people don't need to know whether they have Covid, the government should say so, but they don't. I would challenge why they don't.

CarlottaVance

Someone gets ahead of themselves:

Then it gets astonishing.
Putin: speak clearly, do you support recognition?
Naryshkin: I will
Putin: You will or you do?
Naryshkin: I support bringing them into Russia.
Putin: That’s not what we are discussing! Do you support recognizing independence?
Naryshkin, flustered: Yes

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495780125593554950

FrancisUrquhart

tlg86 said:

James O'Brien showing what an utter moron he is:

https://order-order.com/2022/02/21/james-obriens-testing-cost-confusion/

Clue is in the name...test and trace....At least O'Brien didn't fall for the citrus fruit "scandal" that did the rounds this morning on #FBPE tw@tter.

Did the FT ever apologise for their horseshit that got copy and pasted by every media outlet, because some moron couldn't read what tender documents actually said, not that they contained the word COVID anywhere in them.

CarlottaVance

Right now all of #Russia's security elites are forced to say on tape that they are fully behind the recognition of DNR/LNR. This is also about future regime cohesion and responsibility. Visibly stressed, Naryshkin mixes up the script and calls for annexation.

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1495780859668017157?s=21

CarlottaVance

BREAKING: Ukraine calls for immediate EU sanctions to deter a Russian invasion

https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1495783213540724739

eek

BartholomewRoberts said:

FF43 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FF43 said:

The Government decision to move from free to paid for Covid testing is illogical. Either it's worth doing, in which case they pay for it as they do for any other diagnostic testing on the NHS, or we no longer need to know who has Covid, in which case government advises against the test.

It raises the suspicion that the real reason for making testing more costly/difficult is stop incidents being reported. so it can be covered up.

That doesn't make any sense.

Its not free as its not necessary anymore, but if anyone chooses to go to a pharmacy or elsewhere for the service they should have the right to pay, if that's their free choice.

On the contrary. Not determining whether a test is useful but deciding we will charge you for it, makes no sense. Do people need to know if they have Covid, is the determination the government needs to make and which it is failing to do.

No people don't need to know, that's why they're not being offered free tests.

However just because you don't need to know something, doesn't mean you should be prevented from finding it out if you pay for it. You can choose to get all sorts of diagnostic tests that you don't need if you pay privately like '23 and me' and other stuff like it, why should unprescribed Covid tests not be treated exactly the same?

23 and me isn't a diagnostic test, it's a genetic fingerprint matched to other parts of their dataset.

CarlottaVance

Well there's another escalation. Putin advised to recognize Donetsk and Lugansk republics on their pre-2014 borders - so including cities like Slovyansk, Mariupol and Kramatorsk that are currently under Ukrainian control...

https://twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/1495780311929847818

northern_monkey

Hit ‘em where it hurts.



Edit - yes I know that’s not the real LK.

DecrepiterJohnL

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Gardenwalker

CarlottaVance said:

Someone gets ahead of themselves:

Then it gets astonishing.
Putin: speak clearly, do you support recognition?
Naryshkin: I will
Putin: You will or you do?
Naryshkin: I support bringing them into Russia.
Putin: That’s not what we are discussing! Do you support recognizing independence?
Naryshkin, flustered: Yes

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495780125593554950

I’ve been in meetings like this.
Putin should dump Naryshkin, these people just waste time and energy.

RochdalePioneers

The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.

Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.

Leon

Sky:


Breaking
Ukraine live updates: 'Russia is poised to invade' - Western officials say picture now 'very dark' as satellite images reveal new Russia deployments and change of pattern

Ukraine latest as Emmanuel Macron brokers a potential summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US counterpart Joe Biden; Russia claims to have killed five "Ukrainian saboteurs";

Western officials says Russians have moved from "posturing to poised" for invasion.

CarlottaVance

So the video that's reported to be of Ukrainian armoured vehicles intruding into Russia was filmed at the same place as the video which reported to show a Russian border post which had been blown up by Ukrainian artillery……

The video of the Ukrainian intrusion into Russia is clearly dumb: this location is well within separatist territory.

The video of the destroyed border post was also questionable.

Needless to say, the reports of the destroyed border post has now become even more questionable.

https://twitter.com/N_Waters89/status/1495783296302780424

Nigelb

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

James O'Brien showing what an utter moron he is:

https://order-order.com/2022/02/21/james-obriens-testing-cost-confusion/

LOL that's hilarious. 🤣

I wondered how long it would be for the usual suspects to switch from screaming about how useless Test and Trace is, to how valuable Testing is, without realising it's the same frigging thing. 🤣

Except it's not, as we discussed previously.

Selebian

northern_monkey said:

Hit ‘em where it hurts.



Edit - yes I know that’s not the real LK.

Maybe it is the real Laura K, unshackled by BBC impartiality when tweeting under an outwardly spoof account?

LostPassword

CarlottaVance said:

Right now all of #Russia's security elites are forced to say on tape that they are fully behind the recognition of DNR/LNR. This is also about future regime cohesion and responsibility. Visibly stressed, Naryshkin mixes up the script and calls for annexation.

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1495780859668017157?s=21

So this looks like Putin making sure everyone shares the blame if the invasion goes wrong.

bondegezou

TOPPING suggested on the last thread that the Government had never told him how many people he could have in his house on account of a measles infection.

I note that the Govt has had the power to do just that under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, together with the Health Protection (Local Authority Powers) Regulations 2010 and the Health Protection (Part 2A Orders) Regulations 2010. See Appendix 4 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/343723/12_8_2014_CD_Outbreak_Guidance_REandCT_2__2_.pdf

Malmesbury

Gardenwalker said:

CarlottaVance said:

Someone gets ahead of themselves:

Then it gets astonishing.
Putin: speak clearly, do you support recognition?
Naryshkin: I will
Putin: You will or you do?
Naryshkin: I support bringing them into Russia.
Putin: That’s not what we are discussing! Do you support recognizing independence?
Naryshkin, flustered: Yes

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495780125593554950

I’ve been in meetings like this.
Putin should dump Naryshkin, these people just waste time and energy.

The problem is that if you keep dumping people like that, pretty soon the place where you dump the bodies gets full up. See the New York Mafia....

CarlottaVance

LostPassword said:

CarlottaVance said:

Right now all of #Russia's security elites are forced to say on tape that they are fully behind the recognition of DNR/LNR. This is also about future regime cohesion and responsibility. Visibly stressed, Naryshkin mixes up the script and calls for annexation.

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1495780859668017157?s=21

So this looks like Putin making sure everyone shares the blame if the invasion goes wrong.

Exactly - which might explain why some of them looked unenthusiastic and nervous.

rcs1000

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Although wasn't he ten points ahead at 30% in the polls?

So the issue was more the fracturing of the Conservative vote, rather than the popularity of Corbyn.

eek

Selebian said:

northern_monkey said:

Hit ‘em where it hurts.



Edit - yes I know that’s not the real LK.

Maybe it is the real Laura K, unshackled by BBC impartiality when tweeting under an outwardly spoof account?

That wouldn't hurt the Tory party anywhere near as much as revealing how much in Russian donations the Tory party had received - it's £m's btw....

Stuartinromford

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Isn't Salisbury meant to have been the key breakpoint between Magic Grandpa (popular) and Grumpy Old Trot (unpopular)?

Jez was either too naive/arrogant/dim/all three to do rhe obvious (and right) thing and condemn Russia.

kle4

Roger said:

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

Him being a nice guy (on a 121 level anyway) never really made up for the highly relevant fact that hundreds of his fellow MPs, some who had known him for decades, clearly knew he was not up to the job. To the extent most really struggled or never sought to even pretend otherwise.

You have to be pretty bad for them not to even try.

RochdalePioneers

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Isn't Salisbury meant to have been the key breakpoint between Magic Grandpa (popular) and Grumpy Old Trot (unpopular)?

Jez was either too naive/arrogant/dim/all three to do rhe obvious (and right) thing and condemn Russia.

Its sometime around then. And not just that the pro-Russia / anti-NATO monster had been exposed. Look at policies as well. What had been a moderate populist slate (picked clean by Boris later) was replaced by hard-left lunacy.

Leon

Yet another lefty Guardian writer, forced by the Woke Wars, to publish her non-Woke opinions in a "right wing" outlet


https://unherd.com/2022/02/why-i-stopped-being-a-good-girl/

There are now many of these. Fascinating

kle4

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Isn't Salisbury meant to have been the key breakpoint between Magic Grandpa (popular) and Grumpy Old Trot (unpopular)?

Jez was either too naive/arrogant/dim/all three to do rhe obvious (and right) thing and condemn Russia.

I'm sure that played a part but time is the simplest answer.

And yes, Boris acting as pull factor for some people. Yes high unfavourable and yes Corbyn most important factor, but if he had nothing to do with it the LDs would have done better.

Mexicanpete

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Isn't Salisbury meant to have been the key breakpoint between Magic Grandpa (popular) and Grumpy Old Trot (unpopular)?

Jez was either too naive/arrogant/dim/all three to do rhe obvious (and right) thing and condemn Russia.

He conflated Putin's Russian Right Wing authoritarian cabal of mafioso bandits with that of his beloved Soviet Union.

An easy mistake to make if one is a f****** idiot.

In the event of a Russian takeover of the UK, who do we think will be the puppet Prime Minister? Corbyn or Johnson.

kle4

RochdalePioneers said:

The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.

Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.

It was an understandable move. She knew it was probably not a working majority for anything Brexit related, she was miles ahead in the polls and actual elections from by elections to the locals after she called the GE seemed to indicate it was the right call. The temptation was enormous, I'm not surprised it seemed rational at the time.

Nigelb

CarlottaVance said:

LostPassword said:

CarlottaVance said:

Right now all of #Russia's security elites are forced to say on tape that they are fully behind the recognition of DNR/LNR. This is also about future regime cohesion and responsibility. Visibly stressed, Naryshkin mixes up the script and calls for annexation.

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1495780859668017157?s=21

So this looks like Putin making sure everyone shares the blame if the invasion goes wrong.

Exactly - which might explain why some of them looked unenthusiastic and nervous.

Given it's a recorded, rather than live session, you'd think they'd make less of an arse of it.
Unless they're pitching Netflix a darker version of Arrested Development ?

CarlottaVance

Undeterred by the opprobrium he received in 2018, the Islington North MP is one of the usual suspects arguing that the current crisis in Ukraine is the result of – shock, horror! – those dastardly democracies in the West.

For Corbyn is part of the gang of hard-left MPs who have signed up to a ludicrously one-sided 'open letter' by the ironically-named Stop the War coalition.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-sides-with-russia-again-

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

The audience and actors at the Putin theater don’t look too happy, but everything now points at 🇷🇺 abandoning the Minsk agreement and recognize their puppet statelets as two independent states.

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1495775068877692930

I've lost count of the number of 'independent' states on the edge of and only recognised by Russia there are.

Just calling it a Russian Empire would be simpler but effectively the status quo but with a new tone would be manageable for everyone else.

RochdalePioneers

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.

Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.

It was an understandable move. She knew it was probably not a working majority for anything Brexit related, she was miles ahead in the polls and actual elections from by elections to the locals after she called the GE seemed to indicate it was the right call. The temptation was enormous, I'm not surprised it seemed rational at the time.

Hubris always seems rational at the time. Ironically the "probably not a working majority for anything Brexit related" is what she should have played to her advantage.

She knew that the spartans on her backbenches wanted a wrecking Brexit. She knew that consensus was the only way to get anything both through the Commons and then the country. So she should have played that card repeatedly and forged the cross-party consensus which would have got Brexit done and not an ongoing hell as it has turned into.

Malmesbury

Mexicanpete said:

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Isn't Salisbury meant to have been the key breakpoint between Magic Grandpa (popular) and Grumpy Old Trot (unpopular)?

Jez was either too naive/arrogant/dim/all three to do rhe obvious (and right) thing and condemn Russia.

He conflated Putin's Russian Right Wing authoritarian cabal of mafioso bandits with that of his beloved Soviet Union.

An easy mistake to make if one is a f****** idiot.

In the event of a Russian takeover, who do we think will be the puppet Prime Minister? Corbyn or Johnson.

Even an idiot might work out that since Putin's state uses the literal, actual Russian Nazis (complete with Swastika tattoos) as proxies to beat up opposition demonstrators........

BannedinnParis

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

Him being a nice guy (on a 121 level anyway) never really made up for the highly relevant fact that hundreds of his fellow MPs, some who had known him for decades, clearly knew he was not up to the job. To the extent most really struggled or never sought to even pretend otherwise.

You have to be pretty bad for them not to even try.

Succinctly - Jeremy Corbyn is very bad at day-to-day politics.

CarlottaVance

Corbyn asks about Minsk agreement and NATO pulling back from the border to help de-escalate.

Wallace points out that it’s not NATO that has got 160,000 troops on the border of a sovereign state it’s holding a gun to - and invites him to criticise the Stop the War coalition.

kle4

NorthofStoke said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

I'm pretty certain that (even?) May would have beaten Corbyn handsomely in a re-run. When May lost her majority a lot of voters thought they had the luxury of a protest vote and could vote Labour to stop a big Tory majority. There was also a significant percentage of not engaged voters who didn't fully realise the nature of Corbyn.

May led in the polls for most of early 2019 IIRC, despite being utterly bereft of direction and powerless on Brexit.

Yes there was other stuff going on but that was still remarkable. Eventually it had to give and the utter chaos meant Lab overtook them as both suffered to LD and BXP, but it was clear Corbyn must still be weak.

Mexicanpete

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Voters pick the least worst option

The fact Corbyn had a 10% lead may well say a lot more about May and the mess the Tory party was in than Bozo or indeed Corbyn...

Indeed but anyone saying "the leadership" needs to be put into that context.

With May, Corbyn in the end had a ten point lead.
With Boris, Corbyn was toxic.

Both were post Salisbury. You can't just say Corbyn and divorce the Tory leadership from the situation.

Precisely. People need to jump through hoops to explain why Corbyn in 2019 was toxic whereas in 2017 he was popular. As it happens, though, I think we can do this.

1. Corbyn aged an awful lot in 2 years, and might have been ill (was there speculation about a stroke?). He became ill-tempered and grumpy. His special lenses stopped him making "eye contact" with the camera.

2. Carefully targeted under-the-radar campaigning from CCHQ specifically against Corbyn, telling areas bombed by the IRA that Corbyn sided with the paramilitaries, or Jews that Corbyn was antisemitic and so on.

3. Boris had shot Corbyn's foxes by stealing anything that was popular in 2017 so there was no point voting Labour. Boris ran against May (and Cameron) just as Corbyn had previously done.

4. The public school trots and centrists behind Corbyn combined to ensure Corbyn's policy offering was weak and incoherent.

So 2019 was a little of column A, Corbyn, and a little of column B, Boris.

ETA 5 & column C, Lynton Crosby ballsed up Theresa May's campaign just like he did in Michael Howard's in 2005.

Isn't Salisbury meant to have been the key breakpoint between Magic Grandpa (popular) and Grumpy Old Trot (unpopular)?

Jez was either too naive/arrogant/dim/all three to do rhe obvious (and right) thing and condemn Russia.

He conflated Putin's Russian Right Wing authoritarian cabal of mafioso bandits with that of his beloved Soviet Union.

An easy mistake to make if one is a f****** idiot.

In the event of a Russian takeover, who do we think will be the puppet Prime Minister? Corbyn or Johnson.

Even an idiot might work out that since Putin's state uses the literal, actual Russian Nazis (complete with Swastika tattoos) as proxies to beat up opposition demonstrators........

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

CarlottaVance

Good news:

As anticipated, the ONS infection survey, jewel in the crown of the UK’s pandemic surveillance efforts, is expected to be continued beyond this spring, though in a slightly scaled-down form.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1495782890877112328

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

Corbyn asks about Minsk agreement and NATO pulling back from the border to help de-escalate.

Wallace points out that it’s not NATO that has got 160,000 troops on the border of a sovereign state it’s holding a gun to - and invites him to criticise the Stop the War coalition.

I just dont know how they and he 'both sides' this. Responding with harsh words and weapon drops is not escalation.

It's not as virtuous as they think.

Nigelb

BannedinnParis said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

Him being a nice guy (on a 121 level anyway) never really made up for the highly relevant fact that hundreds of his fellow MPs, some who had known him for decades, clearly knew he was not up to the job. To the extent most really struggled or never sought to even pretend otherwise.

You have to be pretty bad for them not to even try.

Succinctly - Jeremy Corbyn is very bad at day-to-day politics.

And yet we're still arguing whether Mike's header is correct....

kle4

BannedinnParis said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

Him being a nice guy (on a 121 level anyway) never really made up for the highly relevant fact that hundreds of his fellow MPs, some who had known him for decades, clearly knew he was not up to the job. To the extent most really struggled or never sought to even pretend otherwise.

You have to be pretty bad for them not to even try.

Succinctly - Jeremy Corbyn is very bad at day-to-day politics.

Succinctly is not my brand.

NorthofStoke

BannedinnParis said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Corbyn being crap. Not a surprise.

I heard some wonderful examples of this. None that I can quote but it's surprising that Nick knew such a different Corbyn to the one known or imagined by so many others

Him being a nice guy (on a 121 level anyway) never really made up for the highly relevant fact that hundreds of his fellow MPs, some who had known him for decades, clearly knew he was not up to the job. To the extent most really struggled or never sought to even pretend otherwise.

You have to be pretty bad for them not to even try.

Succinctly - Jeremy Corbyn is very bad at day-to-day politics.

But beyond his competence, surely much of what he was aiming for was actually malign even though he sincerely thought it the height of virtue?.

FrancisUrquhart

CarlottaVance said:

Corbyn asks about Minsk agreement and NATO pulling back from the border to help de-escalate.

Wallace points out that it’s not NATO that has got 160,000 troops on the border of a sovereign state it’s holding a gun to - and invites him to criticise the Stop the War coalition.

Surprised he hasn't request the government invite Putin around for a cup of tea at #10 again, like he did after the Salisbury poisoning.

jonny83

CarlottaVance said:

Good news:

As anticipated, the ONS infection survey, jewel in the crown of the UK’s pandemic surveillance efforts, is expected to be continued beyond this spring, though in a slightly scaled-down form.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1495782890877112328

Will have to see the finer detail on how much this is scaled down, but in principle good and very sensible news.

Nigelb

This is the moment for Biden to show up with a public list of Putin’s 50 oligarch trustees and tell him that they will all have their assets frozen in the US, EU, the U.K. and Canada the second Russia makes a move. The sanctions outlined so far won’t stop Putin, but this would
https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1495675376315650051

Malmesbury

UK case by specimen date

Malmesbury

UK R

Malmesbury

Case summary

Malmesbury

Hospitals

Mortimer

RochdalePioneers said:

The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.

Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.

1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it and b) ultra Remainers throught they could get it overturne

2) We are a functional trading nation. As evidenced by the stock on the shelves of every supermarket I go to...

Malmesbury

Deaths

FrancisUrquhart

jonny83 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Good news:

As anticipated, the ONS infection survey, jewel in the crown of the UK’s pandemic surveillance efforts, is expected to be continued beyond this spring, though in a slightly scaled-down form.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1495782890877112328

Will have to see the finer detail on how much this is scaled down, but in principle good and very sensible news.

I know somebody who has been part of that from near the start. At various times, they have been jabbing, stabbing, spitting, seemingly 27 different ways to measure COVID. They could scale it down by sticking to a set series of tests.

northern_monkey

I know some of you have deep admiration for Jolyon’s work. Thought you might be interested in this thread…



https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1495708100237606913?s=21

Malmesbury

Age related data

Heathener

I spoke in confidence to a Labour MP on the eve of the election and he said that if Corbyn won he was going to leave the party.

I'm not joking and this is not made up.

Mike Smithson is 100% right about this. He is also 100% right about the importance of the favourability ratings

Malmesbury

COVID Summary

- Cases down. R under 1, overall and regionally.
- In Hospital down
- Hospital admissions down. R under 1
- MV Beds down
- Deaths down

Pulpstar

Putin to decide today on recognising Donbass independence apparently.

Heathener

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.

Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.

1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it

Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.

Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.

This may be shouted down but it's true.

FrancisUrquhart

Malmesbury said:

COVID Summary

- Cases down. R under 1, overall and regionally.
- In Hospital down
- Hospital admissions down. R under 1
- MV Beds down
- Deaths down

Yeah, but but but, Boris is going to get rid of the rules and then we are all going to die of COVID....or something like that.

Nigelb

Trump's next VP running mate...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/595145-tulsi-gabbard-to-speak-at-cpac

BartholomewRoberts

MikeSmithson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.

Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.

Not much can be discerned from polls taken at point when both major parties are regarded as unelectable due to the quality of their leaders. The 2017 election was conducted in similar circumstances.

Precisely my point. Boris in six months transformed the Tories from unelectedable to electable in the eyes of roughly half of all voters.

The fact that Corbyn was toxic was every bit as true when Labour were getting ten point leads. The opposition being toxic isn't good enough, if you are too though.

Something all parties, including the Tories, would do well to remember going forwards. And why Boris should now go.

Thus is bollocks. LAB never got any leads under Corbyn.

Never? Never? What was this then?



With a 10% lead in the Panelbase poll. And that's not the only leads, just all I can fit on one screenshot.

rottenborough

CarlottaVance said:

Corbyn asks about Minsk agreement and NATO pulling back from the border to help de-escalate.

Wallace points out that it’s not NATO that has got 160,000 troops on the border of a sovereign state it’s holding a gun to - and invites him to criticise the Stop the War coalition.

In an ever changing world it is comforting to known that Jezza still thinks peacenik Brezhnev is running the Soviet Union.

ydoethur

Pulpstar said:

Putin to decide today on recognising Donbass independence apparently.

Was the 'today' in question two months ago?

tlg86

Leon said:

Yet another lefty Guardian writer, forced by the Woke Wars, to publish her non-Woke opinions in a "right wing" outlet


https://unherd.com/2022/02/why-i-stopped-being-a-good-girl/

There are now many of these. Fascinating

Another time, when I said it was ridiculous to make prisons mixed-sex, someone I consider a friend said, “You sound like a homophobe in the Eighties saying you wouldn’t let your kids have a gay teacher.”

When people bring up PIE in relation to Harriet Harman et al, there's always a sense of "well, of course, that was stupid, but it was never a serious runner."

The mindset of that response to Hadley is precisely what led people to support the aims of PIE.