Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Next Thursday looks like being a “mini referendum” on the PM – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 20 in General
imageNext Thursday looks like being a “mini referendum” on the PM – politicalbetting.com

This is the final weekend before next Thursday’s by-elections when the Tories will be defending Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton in Devon. If these go the way of the betting then both seats will be lost thus reducing the CON seat total by 2 and increasing the non-CON total also by two.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,216
    Test
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,444
    So it could be a goodbye election?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,236
    Though the Tories will lose Wakefield in spades on Thursday I think it's in play at the next GE (Providing they dump the great oaf currently in charge)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156

    So it could be a goodbye election?

    That was what happened to Margaret Thatcher. When the LibDems took Eastbourne, in an astonishing result, the penny finally dropped to the Conservatives that she was no longer a winner.

    A month later she was out.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    edited June 18

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    Or as Ian Gilmour said of Mrs Thatcher, "Only in 1983 was she herself an electoral asset."

    ETA the point is that Boris and his advisors might seek to follow this precedent of an unpopular Prime Minister leading the party to a huge majority.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,562
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: penalty for Leclerc,10 places for new electronics.

    Verstappen looking good, Sainz not too far off but Perez either had some problems (I'll read up a little) or fell asleep during his fast laps.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,039
    Heathener said:

    Re DJL's point which sort-of echoes one of HYUFD's mantras, the problem is not realising when an asset turns into a liability.

    Thatcher was helped in 1978-9 by the winter of discontent chaos, and in 1983 by the utterly unelectable Trotskyite Michael Foot and in 1987 by "the two Davids".

    In the late 1980's her unpopularity spread and after Eastbourne it was obvious that she was now a liability.

    Boris Johnson is now a liability but it's nigh-impossible to get the dewey eyed enthralled lovers to listen.

    Not 1 chance in 10 of that,
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,039
    Heathener said:

    Re DJL's point which sort-of echoes one of HYUFD's mantras, the problem is not realising when an asset turns into a liability.

    Thatcher was helped in 1978-9 by the winter of discontent chaos, and in 1983 by the utterly unelectable Trotskyite Michael Foot and in 1987 by "the two Davids".

    In the late 1980's her unpopularity spread and after Eastbourne it was obvious that she was now a liability.

    Boris Johnson is now a liability but it's nigh-impossible to get the dewey eyed enthralled lovers to listen.

    We should introduce HYUFD to a card game like rummy where high value assets can flip instantaneously into high value liabilities
  • JonWCJonWC Posts: 262
    It's been surprisingly low key. We haven't had anything through the door for a week. The only canvasser I have seen was Labour. There are only marginally more LibDem posters than 2010 and I have yet to see a Tory one (maybe that is the key sign).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    Given the whinging about inflation at the moment, Thatcher's achievements look better by the day.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679
    Heathener said:

    Re DJL's point which sort-of echoes one of HYUFD's mantras, the problem is not realising when an asset turns into a liability.

    Thatcher was helped in 1978-9 by the winter of discontent chaos, and in 1983 by the utterly unelectable Trotskyite Michael Foot and in 1987 by "the two Davids".

    In the late 1980's her unpopularity spread and after Eastbourne it was obvious that she was now a liability.

    Boris Johnson is now a liability but it's nigh-impossible to get the dewey eyed enthralled lovers to listen.

    Unlike any previous PM of modern times, Johnson is a direct threat to the UK's democracy. Any Tory claiming to believe in the rule of law who is not actively seeking to remove him from office is a liar. It's that simple.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/britain-has-a-decision-to-make-the-rule-of-boris-johnson-or-the-rule-of-law?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    Given the whinging about inflation at the moment, Thatcher's achievements look better by the day.
    She certainly changed Britain, but the harrowing of the North (and Wales, Scotland, Midlands...) controlled inflation at vast social cost, markedly worsening the North South Divide, social inequality and social mobility, the very opposite of levelling up. This article in the New Yorker on her legacy is spot on IMO:

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-economic-case-for-and-against-thatcherism

    And this classic paper on the deindustrialisation of Britain takes a longer perspective.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://michaelkitson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/wp-459-2014-kitson-and-michie-the-deindustrial-revolution.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiStrzJoLb4AhXJMMAKHVsZDQwQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zKE-cIY4i4o7D4esvZrC0

    A renewed bout of Thatcherism is the surest way to lose the Red Wall.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633
    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,974
    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    It is interesting, although not conclusive. Plus LC is different things to different people. There are studies suggesting for some that it is linked to mental health rather than physical issues. Ultimately long Covid will have a lot of different causes and thus a lot of different fixes.
    The harder cases, aside of those with permanent physical damage, may well be those where the condition is a FND diagnosis, as many patients reject that and believe that there must be a physical cause.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    Given the whinging about inflation at the moment, Thatcher's achievements look better by the day.
    She certainly changed Britain, but the harrowing of the North (and Wales, Scotland, Midlands...) controlled inflation at vast social cost, markedly worsening the North South Divide, social inequality and social mobility, the very opposite of levelling up. This article in the New Yorker on her legacy is spot on IMO:

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-economic-case-for-and-against-thatcherism

    And this classic paper on the deindustrialisation of Britain takes a longer perspective.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://michaelkitson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/wp-459-2014-kitson-and-michie-the-deindustrial-revolution.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiStrzJoLb4AhXJMMAKHVsZDQwQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zKE-cIY4i4o7D4esvZrC0

    A renewed bout of Thatcherism is the surest way to lose the Red Wall.
    Johnson would never do it anyway. He’s a real snowflake about criticism and unpopularity and would never knowingly do anything that would upset people.

    He’s so incompetent he frequently does it by accident, but that’s a different problem.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    That would fit with LC symptoms often getting better after vaccination, hence fewer circulating spike proteins.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    Given the whinging about inflation at the moment, Thatcher's achievements look better by the day.
    She certainly changed Britain, but the harrowing of the North (and Wales, Scotland, Midlands...) controlled inflation at vast social cost, markedly worsening the North South Divide, social inequality and social mobility, the very opposite of levelling up. This article in the New Yorker on her legacy is spot on IMO:

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-economic-case-for-and-against-thatcherism

    And this classic paper on the deindustrialisation of Britain takes a longer perspective.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://michaelkitson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/wp-459-2014-kitson-and-michie-the-deindustrial-revolution.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiStrzJoLb4AhXJMMAKHVsZDQwQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zKE-cIY4i4o7D4esvZrC0

    A renewed bout of Thatcherism is the surest way to lose the Red Wall.
    Johnson would never do it anyway. He’s a real snowflake about criticism and unpopularity and would never knowingly do anything that would upset people.

    He’s so incompetent he frequently does it by accident, but that’s a different problem.
    I agree, as far as Johnson has any political beliefs, he is a Heathite not a Thatcherite.

    He may not be the leader for long though, so a return of Monetarist policy may well happen.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044
    On the face of it this initiative, should it come to fruition, seems somewhat repugnant.

    This govt really has no moral compass.

    https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportation-grounding-of-the-first-flight-to-rwanda-was-absolutely-scandalous-patel-says-12636036
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    It is interesting, although not conclusive. Plus LC is different things to different people. There are studies suggesting for some that it is linked to mental health rather than physical issues. Ultimately long Covid will have a lot of different causes and thus a lot of different fixes.
    The harder cases, aside of those with permanent physical damage, may well be those where the condition is a FND diagnosis, as many patients reject that and believe that there must be a physical cause.
    Yes, as noted it’s a small study.
    But the persistence of long term viral reservoirs in some individuals is a much more easily testable hypothesis than ill defined mental health issues - and it’s relatively simple to repeat and refine this study on a larger scale.

    And if confirmed, there’s a group of patients for whom treatments can be developed.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I doubt she enjoyed it but I doubt she was too concerned about it either.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    Taz said:

    On the face of it this initiative, should it come to fruition, seems somewhat repugnant.

    This govt really has no moral compass.

    https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportation-grounding-of-the-first-flight-to-rwanda-was-absolutely-scandalous-patel-says-12636036

    The flight wasn't grounded. It was free to take off.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    edited June 18
    Good morning

    We are going to Leeds for the weekend to see our granddaughter's new apartment and spend time with her, so I will not be participating much this weekend

    However, I have to say that yesterday's disgraceful trip to Ukraine by Boris, delivering a slap in the face to his northern mps and lying about being on the train to them, just has to be the last straw and it is imperative the party acts now and removes him from office

    Hopefully, the two by elections will see catastrophic results for him, though I did not join the chorus of criticism against the conservative candidate at the hustings as she is facing an impossible position through the unacceptability and unsuitability of Boris who shames us all. I really do not know how conservative mps can look themselves in the mirror as long as they allow this charade to continue

    I note that increasingly Starmer's future as labour leader is being questioned across the media, including the Guardian openly discussing alternatives including Wes Streeting and even Dawn Butler. I actually think some in labour hope he receives a FPN, but I still think it is unlikely but not impossible

    At a time like this we look around and just cannot see any outstanding politicians and not just here but abroad, and the trip by Scholz, Macron and Drahi to Kyiv was an utter embarrassment as graphically illustrated in the photograph of Macron's pathetic embrace of Zelensky. They are seen as appeasers by Ukraine and others and it is not surprising Boris is popular there, but the irony is his latest stunt may just be the trigger that ends his premiership

    And finally I note Trump outpolls Biden and, god forbid, we really do not need him back in 2024
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474
    Taz said:

    On the face of it this initiative, should it come to fruition, seems somewhat repugnant.

    This govt really has no moral compass.

    https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportation-grounding-of-the-first-flight-to-rwanda-was-absolutely-scandalous-patel-says-12636036

    War could be kicking off between Rwanda and DRC.

    https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/congo-official-rwanda-war-war-85410555

    Johnson could get more value from his extraordinary rendition flights with refugees in the cabin and NLAWs in the belly hold.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,840
    FPT:
    Nigelb said:

    Talking of lack of shame.

    https://twitter.com/jason_koebler/status/1537835917452247041
    Uvalde and Uvalde Police have hired a private law firm to fight against being required to release body camera footage and other records related to school shooting

    Files could be 'highly embarrassing,' involve 'emotional/mental distress,' it argues…

    Amateurs.

    They could have followed the Stade de France playbook and just deleted it all after 7 days.

    https://www.thisisanfield.com/2022/06/cctv-footage-of-extremely-violent-scenes-at-stade-de-france-destroyed/
    https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220610-cctv-footage-from-champions-league-fiasco-inexplicably-deleted
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
    Apologies, that was Foxy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    edited June 18
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...

    That would be "brave".

  • Priti comes out for leaving the ECHR. God help us
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728

    Priti comes out for leaving the ECHR. God help us

    The rest of us meanwhile come out for Priti leaving the government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    edited June 18

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...
    I really do not see it but then how could anyone forecast the last two - three years

    Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine in that time span shows just how quickly events can change narratives and to be honest they are the perfect example of why todays polls are irrelevant to GE24
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    Not 99.9%

    “For a lot of scientists it’s 99.9% likely”

    So less than 99.9%

    FWIW I suspect it was an accidental leak from the lab
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...

    I can’t see it. He’d lose handsomely.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    Lord Geidt has written another letter, to William Wragg, Con chair of public admin cttee, to explain his 1st https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61847902 https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1538059460157087745/photo/1
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
    It was me. Obviously not the only period of manufacturing decline but as this article shows, it was a key period and the recession of the early Eighties and monetarist policies particularly hit manufacturing, making exports very uncompetitive.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://michaelkitson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/wp-459-2014-kitson-and-michie-the-deindustrial-revolution.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiStrzJoLb4AhXJMMAKHVsZDQwQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zKE-cIY4i4o7D4esvZrC0
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...

    That would be "brave".

    Yep. But as the alternative is either him being hounded out of office by his own party or getting voted out in a couple of years, "brave" may seem sensible.

    The economy is heading for a contraction Prime Minister. Won't be pretty. And the rebels are coming for you. Or, lets go into campaign mode. Hammer the wedge issues. Make them love you again...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501
    Morning all, interesting-looking report on the dead of Waterloo:
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/18/mystery-of-waterloos-dead-soldiers-to-be-re-examined-by-academics


    The primary paper seems to be open access:
    https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/yjca20
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    Not 99.9%

    “For a lot of scientists it’s 99.9% likely”

    So less than 99.9%

    FWIW I suspect it was an accidental leak from the lab
    I didn’t say I agreed with him. My point is that it is striking how such a respected medical figure in the USA (and he is a serious medic) can come out with such certainty on a topic which was, at least until recently, very hotly debated

    I’d say it is more like ~95% probable; there is a small but not vanishingly small chance it came from a natural spillover, despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence to the contrary

    The medic is surely right that we will now never know for certain. That’s one reason why the initial cover- up - and 100% there was a cover-up of the plausible lab leak hypothesis - was such a disaster. That first year was surely the time we might have got answers if the world had really pressed China. Now any evidence has gone, dissident doctors in China have been killed or “disappeared”, the market has been rebooted, and Peter Daszak is still a free man, for reason known only to him and Doctor Fauci

    Another reason this debate is really important is that it feeds into the Trumpite narrative of the Lying Left. Disastrously so

    Trumpites can say Look you lie and conceal things to destroy Trump and the American Left can deny this but when it comes to Lab Leak it is demonstrably true. So the Trumpites then feel vindicated - and persecuted - and the vicious war in American politics gets worse. Covering up lab leak has made Trump MORE electable, not less

    This is not good
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Taz said:

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...

    I can’t see it. He’d lose handsomely.
    He will if he waits for 2024 after we've all had an arse reaming from the inflationary crash. Assuming he hasn't been removed by then. And yes, he probably will wait. But he does have an alternative.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,708
    edited June 18
    Time to relegate Arsenal, life bans for all Arsenal players and coaching staff, this is bigger news than Boris Johnson's scandals.

    Granit Xhaka’s mysterious booking in Arsenal’s Premier League win at Leeds last season is being investigated by the National Crime Agency amid suspicions of a major betting scandal.

    The FA conducted a six-month investigation and have referred the matter to the country’s leading organised crime agency in a development which indicates serious concerns over corruption and possible criminality.

    The FA opened their inquiry after being alerted to suspicious betting patterns relating to a yellow card shown to Xhaka towards the end of Arsenal’s 4-1 win at Elland Road on December 18.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10928509/Arsenal-Granit-Xhakas-booking-vs-Leeds-investigated-amid-suspicions-betting-scandal.html
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036

    Time to relegate Arsenal, life bans for all Arsenal players and coaching staff, this is bigger news than Boris Johnson's scandals.

    Granit Xhaka’s mysterious booking in Arsenal’s Premier League win at Leeds last season is being investigated by the National Crime Agency amid suspicions of a major betting scandal.

    The FA conducted a six-month investigation and have referred the matter to the country’s leading organised crime agency in a development which indicates serious concerns over corruption and possible criminality.

    The FA opened their inquiry after being alerted to suspicious betting patterns relating to a yellow card shown to Xhaka towards the end of Arsenal’s 4-1 win at Elland Road on December 18.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10928509/Arsenal-Granit-Xhakas-booking-vs-Leeds-investigated-amid-suspicions-betting-scandal.html

    Yes, because Liverpool have never been involved in match fixing, have they?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,974
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,708
    On topic, I'm comfortable with my bet of Con hold in T&H and the Cons getting humiliated in Wakefield.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,974

    Priti comes out for leaving the ECHR. God help us

    And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,708
    edited June 18
    tlg86 said:

    Time to relegate Arsenal, life bans for all Arsenal players and coaching staff, this is bigger news than Boris Johnson's scandals.

    Granit Xhaka’s mysterious booking in Arsenal’s Premier League win at Leeds last season is being investigated by the National Crime Agency amid suspicions of a major betting scandal.

    The FA conducted a six-month investigation and have referred the matter to the country’s leading organised crime agency in a development which indicates serious concerns over corruption and possible criminality.

    The FA opened their inquiry after being alerted to suspicious betting patterns relating to a yellow card shown to Xhaka towards the end of Arsenal’s 4-1 win at Elland Road on December 18.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10928509/Arsenal-Granit-Xhakas-booking-vs-Leeds-investigated-amid-suspicions-betting-scandal.html

    Yes, because Liverpool have never been involved in match fixing, have they?
    Even the Queen wasn't alive when that happened and you forget, there were severe punishments handed down.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    To be honest, anyone laying Xhaka to be booked deserves all they get.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036

    tlg86 said:

    Time to relegate Arsenal, life bans for all Arsenal players and coaching staff, this is bigger news than Boris Johnson's scandals.

    Granit Xhaka’s mysterious booking in Arsenal’s Premier League win at Leeds last season is being investigated by the National Crime Agency amid suspicions of a major betting scandal.

    The FA conducted a six-month investigation and have referred the matter to the country’s leading organised crime agency in a development which indicates serious concerns over corruption and possible criminality.

    The FA opened their inquiry after being alerted to suspicious betting patterns relating to a yellow card shown to Xhaka towards the end of Arsenal’s 4-1 win at Elland Road on December 18.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10928509/Arsenal-Granit-Xhakas-booking-vs-Leeds-investigated-amid-suspicions-betting-scandal.html

    Yes, because Liverpool have never been involved in match fixing, have they?
    Even the Queen wasn't alive when that happened and you forget, there were severe punishments handed down.
    A team fixing a match is a bit of a bigger deal than a spot-fixing scandal.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679

    Priti comes out for leaving the ECHR. God help us

    And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.

    We have a government that does not believe the rule of law should apply to its leader or to its ministers. Of course, they are going to remove any impediments to them being able to do exactly as they want.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,708
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Time to relegate Arsenal, life bans for all Arsenal players and coaching staff, this is bigger news than Boris Johnson's scandals.

    Granit Xhaka’s mysterious booking in Arsenal’s Premier League win at Leeds last season is being investigated by the National Crime Agency amid suspicions of a major betting scandal.

    The FA conducted a six-month investigation and have referred the matter to the country’s leading organised crime agency in a development which indicates serious concerns over corruption and possible criminality.

    The FA opened their inquiry after being alerted to suspicious betting patterns relating to a yellow card shown to Xhaka towards the end of Arsenal’s 4-1 win at Elland Road on December 18.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10928509/Arsenal-Granit-Xhakas-booking-vs-Leeds-investigated-amid-suspicions-betting-scandal.html

    Yes, because Liverpool have never been involved in match fixing, have they?
    Even the Queen wasn't alive when that happened and you forget, there were severe punishments handed down.
    A team fixing a match is a bit of a bigger deal than a spot-fixing scandal.
    The worst thing about that match fixing was it allowed Woolwich to join the First Division. Without that they'd still be in the lower leagues.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236

    Priti comes out for leaving the ECHR. God help us

    No surprise there, if true (where did she say this?).

    It isn't just the rule of law that Johnson and co play fast and loose with, also ideas of effective government through cabinet collective responsibility. The opposition could turn this in to an issue of a tyrannical government with no respect for the law trying to strip people of their rights - in the established tradition of trying to outlaw protest etc. Maybe this will all contribute to the undoing of this government.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
    Out of curiosity I just Wiki’d Peter Daszak, the head of Ecohealth and the co-head of the Wuhan lab research

    Incredible. This is his scientific CV. This is the entire extent of it


    [edit]
    Daszak earned a B.Sc. in zoology in 1987, at Bangor University and a Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases in 1994 at University of East London.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Daszak worked at the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, in Surrey, England in the 1990s. In the late 1990s Daszak moved to the United States and was affiliated with the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia. Around 2001 he became executive director at a collaborative think-tank in New York City, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine.[7] He has adjunct positions at two universities in the U.K. and three universities in the U.S., including the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[2][8]


    He’s got a Bsc in Zoology from…… Bangor, Yes, Bangor. And a Phd in parasites from…. The University of fucking Tower Hamlets

    This is the man whose word we all took as gospel, when he organised that letter to the Lancet, denouncing “lab leak” as a racist conspiracy theory

    A Bsc in Zoology from Bangor, a doctorate bought from a rag and bone man in Whitechapel, then various “collaborative think tanks”

    Louis Pasteur he is not
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044

    Taz said:

    Morning! I expect he will lose both seats. The unhappiness of backbenchers will be subdued - talking to the media off the record lots, backdoor plotting but that's about it.

    The PM's response? He's going to massively ramp up the war on wedge. Lefty lawyers. Woke. Trans Perverts. Invading migrants. Don't talk about me. Or the economy. Or the lack of money in your pocket. Fear what *they* want to take away from you.

    And then an election.

    Yep, we have two years of relentless culture war and falling living standards to look forward to.

    My scenario is that Boris forces an election to see off the threat to his position. So an election in October...

    I can’t see it. He’d lose handsomely.
    He will if he waits for 2024 after we've all had an arse reaming from the inflationary crash. Assuming he hasn't been removed by then. And yes, he probably will wait. But he does have an alternative.
    He can wait til 2024 hoping the worst of inflation is over and it is on the way back down. He can then paint a picture of not jeopardising the recovery.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,173

    On topic, I'm comfortable with my bet of Con hold in T&H and the Cons getting humiliated in Wakefield.

    Fourth behind the Lib Dems and Mr Herdson? That would be a good morning!

    And good morning to one & all!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,562
    Mr. Eagles, kudos for putting your head above the parapet when prevailing opinion is quite otherwise.

    I do have a small bet on the blues holding that seat, though I'm expecting it to fail.

    F1: unsure if I'll wait to do the pre-qualifying tosh or put it up early. I had a tiny bet on Sainz each way to top first practice, which came off. Also have a tiny bet on him for the win each way at 16.

    Surprised Perez seems so far off the pace.

    And be certain to check the weather.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
    Out of curiosity I just Wiki’d Peter Daszak, the head of Ecohealth and the co-head of the Wuhan lab research

    Incredible. This is his scientific CV. This is the entire extent of it


    [edit]
    Daszak earned a B.Sc. in zoology in 1987, at Bangor University and a Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases in 1994 at University of East London.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Daszak worked at the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, in Surrey, England in the 1990s. In the late 1990s Daszak moved to the United States and was affiliated with the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia. Around 2001 he became executive director at a collaborative think-tank in New York City, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine.[7] He has adjunct positions at two universities in the U.K. and three universities in the U.S., including the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[2][8]


    He’s got a Bsc in Zoology from…… Bangor, Yes, Bangor. And a Phd in parasites from…. The University of fucking Tower Hamlets

    This is the man whose word we all took as gospel, when he organised that letter to the Lancet, denouncing “lab leak” as a racist conspiracy theory

    A Bsc in Zoology from Bangor, a doctorate bought from a rag and bone man in Whitechapel, then various “collaborative think tanks”

    Louis Pasteur he is not
    If he had a classics or PPE degree from Oxford and went to Eton, you would find him more trustworthy?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    On topic, I'm comfortable with my bet of Con hold in T&H and the Cons getting humiliated in Wakefield.

    Con hold? Have you see the hustings?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,974
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
    Out of curiosity I just Wiki’d Peter Daszak, the head of Ecohealth and the co-head of the Wuhan lab research

    Incredible. This is his scientific CV. This is the entire extent of it


    [edit]
    Daszak earned a B.Sc. in zoology in 1987, at Bangor University and a Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases in 1994 at University of East London.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Daszak worked at the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, in Surrey, England in the 1990s. In the late 1990s Daszak moved to the United States and was affiliated with the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia. Around 2001 he became executive director at a collaborative think-tank in New York City, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine.[7] He has adjunct positions at two universities in the U.K. and three universities in the U.S., including the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[2][8]


    He’s got a Bsc in Zoology from…… Bangor, Yes, Bangor. And a Phd in parasites from…. The University of fucking Tower Hamlets

    This is the man whose word we all took as gospel, when he organised that letter to the Lancet, denouncing “lab leak” as a racist conspiracy theory

    A Bsc in Zoology from Bangor, a doctorate bought from a rag and bone man in Whitechapel, then various “collaborative think tanks”

    Louis Pasteur he is not
    I’d be more interested in his publication record. Web of science is the way to go if you are interested. Be sure to get the name right.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
    Out of curiosity I just Wiki’d Peter Daszak, the head of Ecohealth and the co-head of the Wuhan lab research

    Incredible. This is his scientific CV. This is the entire extent of it


    [edit]
    Daszak earned a B.Sc. in zoology in 1987, at Bangor University and a Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases in 1994 at University of East London.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Daszak worked at the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, in Surrey, England in the 1990s. In the late 1990s Daszak moved to the United States and was affiliated with the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia. Around 2001 he became executive director at a collaborative think-tank in New York City, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine.[7] He has adjunct positions at two universities in the U.K. and three universities in the U.S., including the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[2][8]


    He’s got a Bsc in Zoology from…… Bangor, Yes, Bangor. And a Phd in parasites from…. The University of fucking Tower Hamlets

    This is the man whose word we all took as gospel, when he organised that letter to the Lancet, denouncing “lab leak” as a racist conspiracy theory

    A Bsc in Zoology from Bangor, a doctorate bought from a rag and bone man in Whitechapel, then various “collaborative think tanks”

    Louis Pasteur he is not
    If he had a classics or PPE degree from Oxford and went to Eton, you would find him more trustworthy?
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
    Out of curiosity I just Wiki’d Peter Daszak, the head of Ecohealth and the co-head of the Wuhan lab research

    Incredible. This is his scientific CV. This is the entire extent of it


    [edit]
    Daszak earned a B.Sc. in zoology in 1987, at Bangor University and a Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases in 1994 at University of East London.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Daszak worked at the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, in Surrey, England in the 1990s. In the late 1990s Daszak moved to the United States and was affiliated with the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia. Around 2001 he became executive director at a collaborative think-tank in New York City, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine.[7] He has adjunct positions at two universities in the U.K. and three universities in the U.S., including the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[2][8]


    He’s got a Bsc in Zoology from…… Bangor, Yes, Bangor. And a Phd in parasites from…. The University of fucking Tower Hamlets

    This is the man whose word we all took as gospel, when he organised that letter to the Lancet, denouncing “lab leak” as a racist conspiracy theory

    A Bsc in Zoology from Bangor, a doctorate bought from a rag and bone man in Whitechapel, then various “collaborative think tanks”

    Louis Pasteur he is not
    If he had a classics or PPE degree from Oxford and went to Eton, you would find him more trustworthy?

    No
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    edited June 18
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
    As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652

    On topic, I'm comfortable with my bet of Con hold in T&H and the Cons getting humiliated in Wakefield.

    Con hold? Have you see the hustings?
    I have bet on Con hold in T&H, but only so I have a consolation prize if Johnson scrapes across the line somehow.

    I will be very happy to lose my fiver on this one.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
    Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    edited June 18
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
    As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
    A fair question. But in response you lefties have to come up with some suggestions as to how your American cousins can rein in the insane Woke BLM Trans Extreme leftoid crazies, as they are equally to blame as the Trumpites

    But how can the US right deal with Trump?

    It’s not easy. Probably the best way is to accept a lot of the Trump rhetoric but reject the man by offering a plausible rightwing alternative within the GOP. Then, in office, tack nearer to the center as a peace offering to the Left. And then hope that the Democrats reciprocate by junking much of the Woke Shit. Result: civil war avoided

    That’s the best I can do. It is a challenge

    Also: I scoff at the idea that the Left is “holding the line”, like some political UN peacekeeping force. The Left is pursuing this culture war just like the Right
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting research report regarding long Covid.

    Persistent circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike is associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1.full.pdf

    Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group.
    It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.

    Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).

    One for you

    “The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.

    “The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated.
    “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””


    https://twitter.com/mzee26/status/1538044024120037381?s=21&t=tuKMKmD-SGVzI4FwLTGdUw

    99.9%

    An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved.
    Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
    “Not much of a scientist”?

    OK…

    “Makary was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to Baltimore as a young child. His family later moved to Danville, Pennsylvania, when his father took a job as a hematologist at the Geisinger Medical Center. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. He was president of the student body at Harvard, and later served on the alumni board. He completed a Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree, with a concentration in health policy.”


    “Makary completed a surgical residency at Georgetown University[7] in Washington D.C. where he also worked as a writer for The Advisory Board Company. Makary completed sub-specialty surgery training at Johns Hopkins in surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery under surgeon John Cameron, before joining Cameron's faculty practice as a partner.[8] In his first few years on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Makary researched and wrote articles on the prevention of surgical complications.[9] He published on frailty[10] as a medical condition, and on safety and teamwork culture in medicine. Makary is the first author of the original scientific publications describing "The Surgery Checklist".[11]

    “Makary worked with the World Health Organization[12] to develop the official World Health Organization Surgical Checklist.[1] For his contributions to the field of medicine, Makary was named Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery, an endowed chair at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, becoming the youngest endowed chair recipient at the time at the university. Three years later, he was named the Credentials Chair and Director of Quality and Safety for Surgery at Johns Hopkins.[7] In 2020, Makary was named Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today. He was also appointed chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center, clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub, Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs, is founder of the Johns Hopkins Center For Surgical Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials, and Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.[13]”

    I’ll bet 5 Armenian dram that he is way more of “a scientist” than, say, Peter Daszak, of Wuhan’s Ecohealth, the man from whose lab the virus probably leaked, and the same man who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a “racist conspiracy theory”, and thereby successfully squashing public discussion of it for about a year,
    So he’s a surgeon, rather than a scientist? 😀
    Out of curiosity I just Wiki’d Peter Daszak, the head of Ecohealth and the co-head of the Wuhan lab research

    Incredible. This is his scientific CV. This is the entire extent of it


    [edit]
    Daszak earned a B.Sc. in zoology in 1987, at Bangor University and a Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases in 1994 at University of East London.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Daszak worked at the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, in Surrey, England in the 1990s. In the late 1990s Daszak moved to the United States and was affiliated with the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia. Around 2001 he became executive director at a collaborative think-tank in New York City, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine.[7] He has adjunct positions at two universities in the U.K. and three universities in the U.S., including the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[2][8]


    He’s got a Bsc in Zoology from…… Bangor, Yes, Bangor. And a Phd in parasites from…. The University of fucking Tower Hamlets

    This is the man whose word we all took as gospel, when he organised that letter to the Lancet, denouncing “lab leak” as a racist conspiracy theory

    A Bsc in Zoology from Bangor, a doctorate bought from a rag and bone man in Whitechapel, then various “collaborative think tanks”

    Louis Pasteur he is not
    I’d be more interested in his publication record. Web of science is the way to go if you are interested. Be sure to get the name right.
    Also - at the moment Bangor is not bad for zoology (and is probabluy better than mos tin some areas, eg marine biology, for obvious reasons).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
    Apologies, that was Foxy.
    Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.

    She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
    I remember seeing the busy industrial Midlands from the trains in and out of Birmingham in the mid and late 1970s. Many, many workshops and factories backing onto the tracks. Now ...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    edited June 18
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
    Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
    Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496

    On topic, I'm comfortable with my bet of Con hold in T&H and the Cons getting humiliated in Wakefield.

    Con hold? Have you see the hustings?
    Yes, but few people attend or watch later.

    I also think the Tories might hold T and H. However, I had the same sense about Shropshire and was wronger than I could imagine.

    I had thought Shrop was different from C and A, and now think Devon is different from Shrop. This may be wrong. Probably is.

    But Boris has one amazing record: he gets what he needs when it counts. Losing T and H badly ought to finish him off. His form suggests it won't. So he might win yet again.

    My stake on Tories winning is very modest. But if they do it is possible to see a maze like route to the Tories winning an early election. For which reason they need to lose very badly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964
    Jonathan said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
    Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
    Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
    QED. You don’t see the dangers of the Woke Left because you don’t even recognise there is a problem

    This is multiplied a hundred times over in the American Left, which means they will continue goading and provoking the Right, and which means the Right will return fire, and then some

    Which leads to the polling we saw yesterday, with Trump - Trump! - leading Biden as the preferred president

    Both sides have to lay down their arms; neither will, because both firmly believe their cause is righteous
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
    Apologies, that was Foxy.
    Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.

    She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
    It's all rather geography and age related. For me the 80s (and 70s) were a charmed, enchanted and magical time. And an amazing time (contrary to lots of opinion now) to live in London.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,679
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict

    The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
    Apologies, that was Foxy.
    Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.

    She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
    I became a teenager in the mid-1980s, so I was around. My dad was trying to run a small business, so I got perhaps a different view from most.

    I am most certainly not saying that the UK in the 1980s was a 'picture postcard'. I'm saying it was not the slough of despond others make it out to be (aside from Slough, obvs.) ;) My memories of the 1970s are few, and then not of the social aspects, but I'd argue the country was not exactly in a good state then.

    As for 'hatred of unionised workers': I am unsure whether 'hatred' is the correct word. She was not find of them, certainly: then again one union tried to anti-democratically bring down her government, so the dislike was mutual.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501
    Re holiday homes and AirBNB etc and how Mr Drakeford was BAAAAAAD for doing something about their harmful effects - it is now seemingly becoming a factor in the Red Wall/North England, not just Wales/Cornwall, and developing into an anti-Tory attack line:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/18/holiday-homes-are-hollowing-out-coastal-areas-says-mp

    '“We’re sleepwalking into a new chapter of the housing crisis where communities are being hollowed out in a way that is irretrievable,” said the Labour MP Luke Pollard. “We’re beyond the tipping point in some places.”

    The Covid pandemic has “turbo-charged” the housing crisis in many rural and coastal communities, Pollard said, as wealthy outsiders snap up holiday retreats – taking properties off the market and pushing prices beyond the reach of local residents.

    This week, residents in the Yorkshire seaside town of Whitby became the latest to voice their anger about the housing crisis when they voted overwhelmingly for curbs on second homes.'
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,562
    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Bingo. It's been said here too, yesterday someone was appalled by the idea of Trump being re-elected because 'it would lead to civil war'. If Trump were to be elected fairly, that event wouldn't be a civil war, it would be an attempted armed overthrow of an elected leader. Hatred for Trump is driving 'liberal' elites insane. And that distorted morality is affecting posters here too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,965

    Priti comes out for leaving the ECHR. God help us

    And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
    Johnson has managed to ride roughshod over our "established legal system" from the proroguing of Parliament to the abandonment of international treaties and the Ministerial Code. How the farce that was a police investigation into Partygate exonerated Johnson. Durham Detectives will likely as not convict Starmer and Rayner, but thought there was nothing to see with Cummings suggests the impartiality of the police is far from perfect. I also give you Attorney General Braverman.

    Johnsonian death squads would of course at present be illegal, certainly until laws are changed, and in Priti Patel, that is not beyond the realms of reason.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    Jonathan said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
    Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
    Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
    I prefer to see democracy as being about hard choices, as with life in general. Sometimes you just have to go for the least worst option. That's how things have been through the ages. Certainly I think politics is a lot better after you have junked the insults and tribal idiocy. This perspective makes you a lot more sympathetic to other peoples choices.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,964

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton

    She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency

    But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?

    This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well

    Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.

    It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
    it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West

    The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
    You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
    I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict

    The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.

    Yes, but irrelevant

    The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc

    That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.
    It crosses a line from thinking a political opponent is mistaken and callous into claiming they are an outright sadist. Sounds implausible.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,562

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.

    "an"?

    I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
    Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
    I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
    And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.

    I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.

    Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
    No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!

    My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
    And I cry b/s on that last line.

    I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.

    I'm far from convinced she did.

    And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.

    The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?

    I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
    You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.

    I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.

    IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
    I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
    Apologies, that was Foxy.
    Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.

    She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
    Yes. I am a huge admirer of Thatcher, but her fear of and hatred for union militancy holding the country to ransom made her happy to embrace jobs moving over to services where the labour market was a lot more flexible. I am not sure how much of what was there in 70's (which was pretty decayed) could have been brought back to life, but probably a lot more than we did.
This discussion has been closed.