We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
And that's with Sunak's personal ratings actually dragging up the Conservative vote. Those ratings date back to his actions with furlough etc, and I don't think they'll hold up after the economic entrenchment to come. Efforts from the person who was Chancellor for most of this parliament to dodge the bullet and claim that the economic mess is all Truss's fault are risible.
Nor do I think he has much political nous. For a start, he's standing in the way of the king taking up the invite to COPT26, at the same time as signalling a renewal of the restrictions on onshore windfarms that have all but killed off new developments. Unnecessary and avoidable own goals that will have already alienated any voter who thinks that tackling climate change should be a priority.
Sunak is a dead duck. In conversations ive had with people they say to me they dont trust him together with some aspersions to "that indian" This is a deeply divided country now
I think that says rather more about the people which you hang out with than anything else.
Not really i hang with normal people not the liberal left elite. Ordinary people dont want Sunak
Reading your post I would suggest you hang out with deeply unpleasant people
You're wrong. He doesn't hang out with anyone. The "some people say that..." is the "I think that..." when you know everyone will call you an arse for saying it.
You clearly dont know the british people like i do...many are fuming inside
Just tell us what you think. You don't like Sunak. Because he's brown. Am I right?
Im talking about the british people...people are saying they have lost their country
That happened 2000 years ago. We've all been mongrels since then, thank God. The ignorance of some racists ...
Some of us are part Neandertal from a lot longer ago than that!
I still am. A few weeks back I took the little 'un swimming with his best friend, and the friend said to me: "Are you sure you're not a caveman?"
Although I'd prefer to see myself as being a furball...
"Fat shaming is only way to beat obesity crisis Deaths from smoking fell dramatically after it was stigmatised but disapproval of the overweight is still thought cruel Matthew Parris" (£)
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
The secret British intelligence plot to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge is revealed in internal documents and correspondence obtained exclusively by The Grayzone.
The Grayzone has obtained an April 2022 presentation drawn up for senior British intelligence officers hashing out an elaborate scheme to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge with the involvement of specially trained Ukrainian soldiers. Almost six months after the plan was circulated, Kerch Bridge was attacked in an October 8th suicide bombing apparently overseen by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence services.
The Russians are in a bind. They can’t grant the Ukrainian’s agency. It can’t be the Americans, so that leaves…us…
We should remember the Russian's standard MO for this: give many different 'stories' about what happened, knowing some people will believe one of them. Or, in the case of PutinsGuy1943 and the MH17 shootdown, all of them.
The Russians try to bury the truth behind many different stories. It does not matter how contradictory the stories are the more there are, the more the truth gets buried below a load of sh*t.
British National Party English Defence League National Front The Guardian:
The world has watched in appalled fascination as the UK’s ruling party scrapes the bottom of its human resources barrel: it found there its first Black chancellor of the exchequer and then, to clear up his mess, its first Hindu prime minister. Yet exultant noises from India as well as Britain would make us believe that some historic milestone has been reached.
The 4 top jobs in the UK government could be held be Sunak, Cleverly, Badenoch and Braverman and the Guardian would still be complaining about it.
Cos they are all either incompetent, evil, dangerous or corrupt.
I have no doubt there are plenty of people who will attack Sunak because he is not white. I think we might well have been spared Truss's mercifully brief premiership if it hadn't been for racism in the Tory party.
That article is obviously not attacking him because he is not white, but because of his political beliefs. Probably most of the people attacking it do understand that, but all's fair in love and war.
On The Guardian article about Sunak. It's not The Guardian, is it, or one of their journalists? It's written by Pankaj Mishra, an Indian essayist and novelist. Yes, it's a controversial argument. But it's not The Guardian's view; it's Mishra's.
The Guardian obviously decided to publish it. I assume we're all in favour of freedom of speech?
I see that according to Russia that we were behind this latest drone attack, the blowing up of the pipeline and the Kerch Bridge ...
But I'm curious about this line on the BBC site.
In recent days, Russia has been engaged in what US and Ukrainian officials describe as a disinformation campaign, with unsubstantiated claims that Kyiv is preparing to use a radioactive dirty bomb, or even biological mosquitoes.
That Vanity Fair article is explosive. It came from the lab, almost certainly
What will this do to West/China relations?
What will it do to virology, and science at large?
Tony Fauci needs to go on trial and - if convicted - do time, as do many top boffins around the world who conspired in the cover-up - Vallance and Farrar in the UK, for a start - and many others
Peter Daszak and others close to the crime need Nuremberg Trials with potential execution at the end, if convicted. Twenty MILLION people have died. Worse than World War One
I have always believed that it came from a lab. Nothing else made sense. The question was whether they did this deliberately or by cock up. Cock up has always looked a strong favourite to me and it remains so. A further and more problematic question was whether it was acceptable for them doing this kind of research in the first place. To which the obvious answer is no. At that point relations do become more problematic.
Why ‘nothing else’? New viruses make the transition between species rather frequently. What do you is the origin of the original SARS? Or MERS? It’s possible it came from the lab, for sure, but asserting ‘nothing else’ makes sense is too strong.
Absolutely. HIV is an obvious other one. In my adult lifetime there have been two newsworthy lab leaks in the UK (Smallpox and Foot and Mouth), although neither were of an engineered virus so not as good a story for those looking for one. It seems to me that both origins are plausible and contrary to Leon's conspiracy theories either could be true. Unfortunately he might post something that is relevant in his hundreds of posts, but there is so much crap he believes in that it is like the crying wolf story and you miss the gems for all the crap. Has anyone heard anymore about the hundreds of UFOs flying over the Ukraine?
"Fat shaming is only way to beat obesity crisis Deaths from smoking fell dramatically after it was stigmatised but disapproval of the overweight is still thought cruel Matthew Parris" (£)
I see that according to Russia that we were behind this latest drone attack, the blowing up of the pipeline and the Kerch Bridge ...
But I'm curious about this line on the BBC site.
In recent days, Russia has been engaged in what US and Ukrainian officials describe as a disinformation campaign, with unsubstantiated claims that Kyiv is preparing to use a radioactive dirty bomb, or even biological mosquitoes.
British National Party English Defence League National Front The Guardian:
The world has watched in appalled fascination as the UK’s ruling party scrapes the bottom of its human resources barrel: it found there its first Black chancellor of the exchequer and then, to clear up his mess, its first Hindu prime minister. Yet exultant noises from India as well as Britain would make us believe that some historic milestone has been reached.
The 4 top jobs in the UK government could be held be Sunak, Cleverly, Badenoch and Braverman and the Guardian would still be complaining about it.
Cos they are all either incompetent, evil, dangerous or corrupt.
As opposed to the SNP who are just incompetent and divisive and attempting to take the moral high ground while still only ever having white leaders at both Westminster, unlike the Tories and Holyrood, unlike Scottish Labour
I see that according to Russia that we were behind this latest drone attack, the blowing up of the pipeline and the Kerch Bridge ...
But I'm curious about this line on the BBC site.
In recent days, Russia has been engaged in what US and Ukrainian officials describe as a disinformation campaign, with unsubstantiated claims that Kyiv is preparing to use a radioactive dirty bomb, or even biological mosquitoes.
What's a non-biological mosquito?
When you've tried the old robo-squito ploy, you have to revert to the biological ones.
British National Party English Defence League National Front The Guardian:
The world has watched in appalled fascination as the UK’s ruling party scrapes the bottom of its human resources barrel: it found there its first Black chancellor of the exchequer and then, to clear up his mess, its first Hindu prime minister. Yet exultant noises from India as well as Britain would make us believe that some historic milestone has been reached.
On The Guardian article about Sunak. It's not The Guardian, is it, or one of their journalists? It's written by Pankaj Mishra, an Indian essayist and novelist. Yes, it's a controversial argument. But it's not The Guardian's view; it's Mishra's.
The Guardian obviously decided to publish it. I assume we're all in favour of freedom of speech?
The would have made a smarter decision not to have published brain dead drivel, and given the time and space to perceptive nuanced journalism instead.
That new Black Panther movie must be absolute pants, just saw a trailer for it at the cinema which was of the actors saying how important a movie it was and how amazing - it's never a good sign when even a trailer cannot be made good, so they retreat to getting the actors to just tell us it is good.
To be fair the first one was utter shit too. It's a rare sequel that digs its way out of hole that deep. Has there ever been a good sequels to really bad first film?
Arguably The Empire strikes back was better than the original Star Wars. And Terminator 2 was better but neither of the first efforts were absolutely awful.
That new Black Panther movie must be absolute pants, just saw a trailer for it at the cinema which was of the actors saying how important a movie it was and how amazing - it's never a good sign when even a trailer cannot be made good, so they retreat to getting the actors to just tell us it is good.
To be fair the first one was utter shit too. It's a rare sequel that digs its way out of hole that deep. Has there ever been a good sequels to really bad first film?
Arguably The Empire strikes back was better than the original Star Wars. And Terminator 2 was better but neither of the first efforts were absolutely awful.
Aliens was better than Alien, IMHO - original was too long and slow.
I've read before that Russia ascribe a level of subversive skill to us because they take James Bond a little too literally in being representative of what we can do.
British specialists helping the Ukrainian Navy in Sevastapol earlier today.
There needs to be a Spy Who Loved Me thumbnail response to every Russian allegation of British involvement from now on, I think.
The secret British intelligence plot to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge is revealed in internal documents and correspondence obtained exclusively by The Grayzone.
The Grayzone has obtained an April 2022 presentation drawn up for senior British intelligence officers hashing out an elaborate scheme to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge with the involvement of specially trained Ukrainian soldiers. Almost six months after the plan was circulated, Kerch Bridge was attacked in an October 8th suicide bombing apparently overseen by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence services.
The Russians are in a bind. They can’t grant the Ukrainian’s agency. It can’t be the Americans, so that leaves…us…
We should remember the Russian's standard MO for this: give many different 'stories' about what happened, knowing some people will believe one of them. Or, in the case of PutinsGuy1943 and the MH17 shootdown, all of them.
The Russians try to bury the truth behind many different stories. It does not matter how contradictory the stories are the more there are, the more the truth gets buried below a load of sh*t.
They ar eburying more than the truth these days as they get a whupping.
That Vanity Fair article is explosive. It came from the lab, almost certainly
What will this do to West/China relations?
What will it do to virology, and science at large?
Tony Fauci needs to go on trial and - if convicted - do time, as do many top boffins around the world who conspired in the cover-up - Vallance and Farrar in the UK, for a start - and many others
Peter Daszak and others close to the crime need Nuremberg Trials with potential execution at the end, if convicted. Twenty MILLION people have died. Worse than World War One
I have always believed that it came from a lab. Nothing else made sense. The question was whether they did this deliberately or by cock up. Cock up has always looked a strong favourite to me and it remains so. A further and more problematic question was whether it was acceptable for them doing this kind of research in the first place. To which the obvious answer is no. At that point relations do become more problematic.
Why ‘nothing else’? New viruses make the transition between species rather frequently. What do you is the origin of the original SARS? Or MERS? It’s possible it came from the lab, for sure, but asserting ‘nothing else’ makes sense is too strong.
Absolutely. HIV is an obvious other one. In my adult lifetime there have been two newsworthy lab leaks in the UK (Smallpox and Foot and Mouth), although neither were of an engineered virus so not as good a story for those looking for one. It seems to me that both origins are plausible and contrary to Leon's conspiracy theories either could be true. Unfortunately he might post something that is relevant in his hundreds of posts, but there is so much crap he believes in that it is like the crying wolf story and you miss the gems for all the crap. Has anyone heard anymore about the hundreds of UFOs flying over the Ukraine?
There have been frequent worldwide pandemics through recorded history, even when travel was much less frequent - e.g. the Black Death in the mid 1300s. None of these started in 'labs'. Therefore it is perfectly possible for new diseases and pestilences to pop up and spread. In fact, it is to be expected.
In the 1900s, we had the 1918 'Spanish' flu. The 1957 pandemic. The 1980s AIDS crisis.
This does not mean that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible; just that 'natural' outbreaks of novel diseases are hardly unknown or amazing.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
This isn’t a typical situation.
Most new PMs have a clear external driver for change (retirement - May was different but “get Brexit done” was a powerful slogan). Therefore it was fair to give the new guy/gal a chance.
On this occasion Rishi has to earn the right for the Tories to be heard first
That Vanity Fair article is explosive. It came from the lab, almost certainly
What will this do to West/China relations?
What will it do to virology, and science at large?
Tony Fauci needs to go on trial and - if convicted - do time, as do many top boffins around the world who conspired in the cover-up - Vallance and Farrar in the UK, for a start - and many others
Peter Daszak and others close to the crime need Nuremberg Trials with potential execution at the end, if convicted. Twenty MILLION people have died. Worse than World War One
I have always believed that it came from a lab. Nothing else made sense. The question was whether they did this deliberately or by cock up. Cock up has always looked a strong favourite to me and it remains so. A further and more problematic question was whether it was acceptable for them doing this kind of research in the first place. To which the obvious answer is no. At that point relations do become more problematic.
Why ‘nothing else’? New viruses make the transition between species rather frequently. What do you is the origin of the original SARS? Or MERS? It’s possible it came from the lab, for sure, but asserting ‘nothing else’ makes sense is too strong.
They’ve spent 3 years looking for the vector with no success
Oct 29 (Reuters) - Russia has suspended participation in a U.N.-brokered deal to export agricultural produce from Ukrainian ports following attacks on ships in Crimea, TASS quoted the defence ministry as saying on Saturday.
Russia said that Ukrainian forces, with the help of drones, attacked ships from the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, the biggest city in Russian-annexed Crimea, in the early hours of Saturday.
"Taking into account... the terrorist act by the Kyiv regime with the participation of British experts against the ships of the Black Sea Fleet and civilian vessels involved in ensuring the security of the "grain corridor", the Russian side suspends participation in the implementation of agreements on the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports," the ministry said in a statement
That Vanity Fair article is explosive. It came from the lab, almost certainly
What will this do to West/China relations?
What will it do to virology, and science at large?
Tony Fauci needs to go on trial and - if convicted - do time, as do many top boffins around the world who conspired in the cover-up - Vallance and Farrar in the UK, for a start - and many others
Peter Daszak and others close to the crime need Nuremberg Trials with potential execution at the end, if convicted. Twenty MILLION people have died. Worse than World War One
I have always believed that it came from a lab. Nothing else made sense. The question was whether they did this deliberately or by cock up. Cock up has always looked a strong favourite to me and it remains so. A further and more problematic question was whether it was acceptable for them doing this kind of research in the first place. To which the obvious answer is no. At that point relations do become more problematic.
People who said it might have come from a lab were regarded as dangerous conspiracy theorists for a long time.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
A mystifyingly stupid conflation.
Chinese politicians and scientists are decent middle class chaps rather like us in suits and ties or lab coats, who would never make a mistake or cover it up if they did. Whereas the Chinese poor are as disgusting as poor people everywhere and routinely bite the heads off live bats in wet markets.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in, with all the extensive positive media coverage, is important because of the historical precedent those who get good early results with voters can be winners, those who don’t get them are certain losers. If there isn’t that instant appeal of freshness and competence from Sunak straight after Truss and Boris, then he is unlikely to ever appear any more favourable in eyes of voters after mistakes and painful decisions.
It’s not just we are about to enter a rocky road between government and voters for two years, where voters won’t like tax rises, public spending cuts, but the way the Torys melted down this year they are inviting blame for the pain, blame for the high interest rates, blame for the lack growth - it’s only a honeymoon bounce convinces us the narrative could play out differently from that, that despairing voters are minded to give Sunak a chance.
Quite the opposite from your argument, the truth is no polling bounce to average in 30s this November, and the Tories are clearly facing one of the worse popularity crisis in their history, far worse than 97.
On The Guardian article about Sunak. It's not The Guardian, is it, or one of their journalists? It's written by Pankaj Mishra, an Indian essayist and novelist. Yes, it's a controversial argument. But it's not The Guardian's view; it's Mishra's.
The Guardian obviously decided to publish it. I assume we're all in favour of freedom of speech?
Sure, but there are different standards for what should be against the law and what should be in a mainstream national press article.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
And that's with Sunak's personal ratings actually dragging up the Conservative vote. Those ratings date back to his actions with furlough etc, and I don't think they'll hold up after the economic entrenchment to come. Efforts from the person who was Chancellor for most of this parliament to dodge the bullet and claim that the economic mess is all Truss's fault are risible.
Nor do I think he has much political nous. For a start, he's standing in the way of the king taking up the invite to COPT26, at the same time as signalling a renewal of the restrictions on onshore windfarms that have all but killed off new developments. Unnecessary and avoidable own goals that will have already alienated any voter who thinks that tackling climate change should be a priority.
Sunak is a dead duck. In conversations ive had with people they say to me they dont trust him together with some aspersions to "that indian" This is a deeply divided country now
I think that says rather more about the people which you hang out with than anything else.
Not really i hang with normal people not the liberal left elite. Ordinary people dont want Sunak
Reading your post I would suggest you hang out with deeply unpleasant people
You're wrong. He doesn't hang out with anyone. The "some people say that..." is the "I think that..." when you know everyone will call you an arse for saying it.
You clearly dont know the british people like i do...many are fuming inside
Just tell us what you think. You don't like Sunak. Because he's brown. Am I right?
Im talking about the british people...people are saying they have lost their country
That happened 2000 years ago. We've all been mongrels since then, thank God. The ignorance of some racists ...
Some of us are part Neandertal from a lot longer ago than that!
I still am. A few weeks back I took the little 'un swimming with his best friend, and the friend said to me: "Are you sure you're not a caveman?"
Although I'd prefer to see myself as being a furball...
[edit] Cheddar Gorge cave burial DNA research found a closest living relative, indeed, in a local schoolmaster in the area IIRC.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
The anti-wokery will be to keep Tories and Tory pols happy, not just the media. Though it could come unstuck in the other direction, given the general tendency to canteen culture of many police. Will be interesting to see what happens.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
"Fat shaming is only way to beat obesity crisis Deaths from smoking fell dramatically after it was stigmatised but disapproval of the overweight is still thought cruel Matthew Parris" (£)
We’re having a productive day it seems. I wonder if Vlad’s been having a chat with his friend Ayatollah Khamenei who reminded him that the sly English fox is the invisible puppet master behind everything, controlling the Americans and even Israel. Perhaps the Brits are behind the genetically engineered robot mosquitoes too.
I have a friend of Iranian heritage, he tells me that there is a saying (that goes back to Persian times):
If you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
The point is it's about focussing on the (hard) substance rather than trendy keyboard warrior virtue-signalling.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
🙂 understanding and relating to political history give me all the logic I need. the period after a new political leader is crowned is always a honeymoon period, no if buts or rational argument exists to prove otherwise Driver.
As I explained in my reasoning, this particular honeymoon period is even more vital and Illustrative than most honeymoon periods, very much like if major was replaced as leader in 95, if some voters have not already made up their minds how to vote (for Black Wednesday read Truss mistakes) then they very soon will do, long before actual election.
Just like the leader replacing Major in 95 desperately needed to show bounce in their honeymoon period, ditto for Sunak here.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I don't think this is a honeymoon period becuse it doesn't feel like a honeymoon period.
MoonRabbit's argument, such that it is, is "this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, therefore this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories". It could be correct that this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, but that's just an assumption. It's plausible, bit there's no logic or evidence for it.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
The anti-wokery will be to keep Tories and Tory pols happy, not just the media. Though it could come unstuck in the other direction, given the general tendency to canteen culture of many police. Will be interesting to see what happens.
Indeed - although not sure what they're doing is the opposite of woke at all, so wouldn't result in them coming unstuck in that manner. All the plans/priorities/targets etc seem to be about resources plus best practice, and a hell of a lot of extra management control. The kind of modern organisations that follow these paths wouldn't see an increase in canteen culture as that seems to be as much a distraction from policing as the "woke" stuff.
One thing that makes me raise my eyebrows at each of the "LABLEAK!" revelations is the way that so many things that were "dispositive" or "smoking guns" turned out not to be anything of the sort.
"The Furin Cleavage Site is unique!" ... except it seems now that a quarter to a third of coronaviruses have FCS "We've found the fingerprints of genetic tampering!" ... except it turns out that it was trying to cherrypick until an apparent sequence was found, and that the "fingerprints" in question would not have existed if people had followed the "Golden Gate" method they described. And now "The Republican Senate minority report says so!" ... which seems to me to be the weakest of the three "killer" ones to date.
My instinct was "accidental lab leak" to begin with, but the molecular epidemiology report (with two separate spillover events separated by weeks) linked with the conclusive establishment that the wet market was the epicentre make it look considerably less plausible.
Because you'd need two separate accidents, which would need for two separate infectees who went nowhere else in Wuhan other than the wet market both separate times (otherwise one or more of the many dozens of more likely superspreader sites would have been a second, third, fourth epicentre).
There's a mindset that finds the idea of a lab leak less alarming. That implies that people (even if they're bad people) are in control of the situation. And provided the right people are in charge, all will be well. That we have the potential for sovereignty over the situation, so to speak.
The idea that something dreadful like this can just happen, due to a combination of bad luck, stupidity and a bit of greed, that's a lot scarier in many ways. Because it can't be stopped, and mitigations depend on us all being less stupid and less greedy.
The "Find someone to blame" mindset.
Yeah. I'd been reading reports on potential pandemics years ago, and they concluded we'd get more and more zoonotic spillover events over time as various reservoir species get pushed out of their niches and humans push in to their territories.
They've been expecting a big zoonotic spillover pandemic for a generation now.
Because AIDS, Zika and Ebola weren’t big enough for them?
I spend a lot of time focusing on the implications of One Health. If you think about it logically, novel viruses in humans can either come from spontaneous mutation (which is very unlikely that it would be so major as to be a “new virus”) or from zoonotic transmission. You are right, though, that population growth and reservoir penetration is increasing the frequency of new encounters.
But there has been no good evidence of the intermediate treaty. Given the way that the Chinese have closed access to the mines and they effort they are going to to obstruct investigation don’t you think they would have shouted loudly if they had found the transmission pathway?
Using the old Sherlock Holmes approach the most likely explanation is a lab leak… I expect due to accident and/or bad practice rather than deliberate but we will never be able to prove that
We’re having a productive day it seems. I wonder if Vlad’s been having a chat with his friend Ayatollah Khamenei who reminded him that the sly English fox is the invisible puppet master behind everything, controlling the Americans and even Israel. Perhaps the Brits are behind the genetically engineered robot mosquitoes too.
I have a friend of Iranian heritage, he tells me that there is a saying (that goes back to Persian times):
If you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there.
I spend all my days leaving rocks all over the place.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
🙂 the period after a new political leader is crowned is always a honeymoon period, no if buts or rational argument exists to prove otherwise Driver.
As I explained in my reasoning, this particular honeymoon period is even more vital and Illustrative than most honeymoon periods, very much like if major was replaced as leader in 95, if some voters have not already made up their minds how to vote (for Black Wednesday read Truss mistakes) then they very soon will do, long before actual election.
Just like the leader replacing Major in 95 desperately needed to show bounce in their honeymoon period, ditto for Sunak here.
X has always happened therefore X will always happen is also a logical fallacy.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
The idea that new leaders don't usually get positive coverage is an utterly bizarre one, I'm afraid I have no idea where you get that from.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
🙂 the period after a new political leader is crowned is always a honeymoon period, no if buts or rational argument exists to prove otherwise Driver.
As I explained in my reasoning, this particular honeymoon period is even more vital and Illustrative than most honeymoon periods, very much like if major was replaced as leader in 95, if some voters have not already made up their minds how to vote (for Black Wednesday read Truss mistakes) then they very soon will do, long before actual election.
Just like the leader replacing Major in 95 desperately needed to show bounce in their honeymoon period, ditto for Sunak here.
X has always happened therefore X will always happen is also a logical fallacy.
Whilst your X happened in nineties from similar situation means its certain not the case this time is somehow more logical 🤣
British National Party English Defence League National Front The Guardian:
The world has watched in appalled fascination as the UK’s ruling party scrapes the bottom of its human resources barrel: it found there its first Black chancellor of the exchequer and then, to clear up his mess, its first Hindu prime minister. Yet exultant noises from India as well as Britain would make us believe that some historic milestone has been reached.
Imagine if the first black Chancellor and the first Hindu PM had been Labour.
Well, we have to imagine, in the same way we have to imagine Labour's first female PM.
This lashing out is partly at the embarrassment of Labour being almost half a century behind the Tories on diversity. The Tories!! Damn, that must hurt.
Tories elect figureheads, Labour pass legislation to give rights to minorities. I know which one is more important.
Is it not better to see people as people, rather than 'minorities'?
Which seems to be the thrust of that article by Pankaj Mishra: don't let these people of colour be used as cover for what he sees as a regressive agenda:
But we should be in no doubt about what an immoral and inept political class wants us to celebrate: “Asian representation” leading a cruel Tory programme of mass impoverishment.
Agree or disgree with the politics, that call to look beyond just ethnicity is correct.
Calling Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley “far right” seems a little hyperbolic though
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
Yes, the fact that Trump picked it up obviously means it's idiotic racist nonsense.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I don't think this is a honeymoon period becuse it doesn't feel like a honeymoon period.
MoonRabbit's argument, such that it is, is "this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, therefore this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories". It could be correct that this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, but that's just an assumption. It's plausible, bit there's no logic or evidence for it.
Rather, the argument is: past experience shows that new leaders usually get a bounce. If it *appears* that Rishi is not getting one, one explanation is that the rule does not always hold. However, the more consistent we believe the bounce to be, the more we should examine alternative theories which say that there *is* a bounce going on, but other forces are countering it so that it shows up as not sinking even lower than would otherwise be the case, rather than positively rising.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
🙂 the period after a new political leader is crowned is always a honeymoon period, no if buts or rational argument exists to prove otherwise Driver.
As I explained in my reasoning, this particular honeymoon period is even more vital and Illustrative than most honeymoon periods, very much like if major was replaced as leader in 95, if some voters have not already made up their minds how to vote (for Black Wednesday read Truss mistakes) then they very soon will do, long before actual election.
Just like the leader replacing Major in 95 desperately needed to show bounce in their honeymoon period, ditto for Sunak here.
X has always happened therefore X will always happen is also a logical fallacy.
Whilst your X happened in nineties from similar situation means its certain not the case this time is somehow more logical 🤣
I have no idea what this means. I haven't suggested that anything is certain, and I haven't compared anything with the 90s.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
The point is it's about focussing on the (hard) substance rather than trendy keyboard warrior virtue-signalling.
I'd imagine a well-run police force doesn't have to worry about their service being degraded because of rainbow lapels.
There's no way that forces are failing because they're attending too many Pride marches, or too busy taking the knee. That would have almost no effect on the day to day work. They're failing because of poor organisational management. The anti-woke stuff is PR.
On The Guardian article about Sunak. It's not The Guardian, is it, or one of their journalists? It's written by Pankaj Mishra, an Indian essayist and novelist. Yes, it's a controversial argument. But it's not The Guardian's view; it's Mishra's.
The Guardian obviously decided to publish it. I assume we're all in favour of freedom of speech?
Sure, but there are different standards for what should be against the law and what should be in a mainstream national press article.
Saying it shouldn't be published is just silly. For the author, Rishi (like many of his race both here and abroad) is a fully signed-up member of a divisive and oppressive political tradition. So he's not going to say, 'Ooo goody! Let's put all that aside because Rishi's the same race as me'. That seems a perfectly understandable position.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
And that's with Sunak's personal ratings actually dragging up the Conservative vote. Those ratings date back to his actions with furlough etc, and I don't think they'll hold up after the economic entrenchment to come. Efforts from the person who was Chancellor for most of this parliament to dodge the bullet and claim that the economic mess is all Truss's fault are risible.
Nor do I think he has much political nous. For a start, he's standing in the way of the king taking up the invite to COPT26, at the same time as signalling a renewal of the restrictions on onshore windfarms that have all but killed off new developments. Unnecessary and avoidable own goals that will have already alienated any voter who thinks that tackling climate change should be a priority.
Sunak is a dead duck. In conversations ive had with people they say to me they dont trust him together with some aspersions to "that indian" This is a deeply divided country now
I think that says rather more about the people which you hang out with than anything else.
Not really i hang with normal people not the liberal left elite. Ordinary people dont want Sunak
Reading your post I would suggest you hang out with deeply unpleasant people
You're wrong. He doesn't hang out with anyone. The "some people say that..." is the "I think that..." when you know everyone will call you an arse for saying it.
You clearly dont know the british people like i do...many are fuming inside
Just tell us what you think. You don't like Sunak. Because he's brown. Am I right?
A new poster with no track record joins and starts to make divisive comments based on race?
Say hi to Vlad for me will you Chris?
Most fascinatingly he didn't even deny it. Now we'll never* know.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
I am genuinely open minded about the possibility that Covid originated from a Lab leak. But you have posted on here for months (years maybe) that Lab leak was proved, with no possibility of any other explanation.
I can only conclude that some people (e.g. you) are desperate to have it accepted as proven it. Why?
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I don't think this is a honeymoon period becuse it doesn't feel like a honeymoon period.
MoonRabbit's argument, such that it is, is "this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, therefore this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories". It could be correct that this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, but that's just an assumption. It's plausible, bit there's no logic or evidence for it.
Rather, the argument is: past experience shows that new leaders usually get a bounce. If it *appears* that Rishi is not getting one, one explanation is that the rule does not always hold. However, the more consistent we believe the bounce to be, the more we should examine alternative theories which say that there *is* a bounce going on, but other forces are countering it so that it shows up as not sinking even lower than would otherwise be the case, rather than positively rising.
That would be a strong argument, but it's not the one that MoonRabbit is making. And it doesn't say anything about what will happen over the following months and years, unlike MoonRabbit.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
The point is it's about focussing on the (hard) substance rather than trendy keyboard warrior virtue-signalling.
I'd imagine a well-run police force doesn't have to worry about their service being degraded because of rainbow lapels.
There's no way that forces are failing because they're attending too many Pride marches, or too busy taking the knee. That would have almost no effect on the day to day work. They're failing because of poor organisational management. The anti-woke stuff is PR.
Nah, it's the triumph of substance over trivia. A lot of time can be wasted on the Woke stuff, and it divides people and their confidence in the force too. It makes complete sense that a discipline force would ditch it.
You just don't want to face-up to the problems of Wokery because it goes against your world view.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
And that's with Sunak's personal ratings actually dragging up the Conservative vote. Those ratings date back to his actions with furlough etc, and I don't think they'll hold up after the economic entrenchment to come. Efforts from the person who was Chancellor for most of this parliament to dodge the bullet and claim that the economic mess is all Truss's fault are risible.
Nor do I think he has much political nous. For a start, he's standing in the way of the king taking up the invite to COPT26, at the same time as signalling a renewal of the restrictions on onshore windfarms that have all but killed off new developments. Unnecessary and avoidable own goals that will have already alienated any voter who thinks that tackling climate change should be a priority.
Sunak is a dead duck. In conversations ive had with people they say to me they dont trust him together with some aspersions to "that indian" This is a deeply divided country now
I think that says rather more about the people which you hang out with than anything else.
Not really i hang with normal people not the liberal left elite. Ordinary people dont want Sunak
Reading your post I would suggest you hang out with deeply unpleasant people
You're wrong. He doesn't hang out with anyone. The "some people say that..." is the "I think that..." when you know everyone will call you an arse for saying it.
You clearly dont know the british people like i do...many are fuming inside
Just tell us what you think. You don't like Sunak. Because he's brown. Am I right?
Im talking about the british people...people are saying they have lost their country
That happened 2000 years ago. We've all been mongrels since then, thank God. The ignorance of some racists ...
Some of us are part Neandertal from a lot longer ago than that!
I still am. A few weeks back I took the little 'un swimming with his best friend, and the friend said to me: "Are you sure you're not a caveman?"
Although I'd prefer to see myself as being a furball...
[edit] Cheddar Gorge cave burial DNA research found a closest living relative, indeed, in a local schoolmaster in the area IIRC.
And apparently he had a worryingly (for some idiots) dark skin tone...
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
Of course, it's quite a jump to connect tying up hair to reducing the time it takes to answer 999 calls.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
The point is it's about focussing on the (hard) substance rather than trendy keyboard warrior virtue-signalling.
I'd imagine a well-run police force doesn't have to worry about their service being degraded because of rainbow lapels.
There's no way that forces are failing because they're attending too many Pride marches, or too busy taking the knee. That would have almost no effect on the day to day work. They're failing because of poor organisational management. The anti-woke stuff is PR.
Focusing on the wrong things is poor organisational management, though.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
The idea that new leaders don't usually get positive coverage is an utterly bizarre one, I'm afraid I have no idea where you get that from.
In this case, Sunak isn't exactly new anyway.
If you are talking about a new leader THEREFORE positive coverage THEREFORE bounce, your honeymoon metaphor is so shit and inappropriate that you should be disclaiming, not using, it. Never known anyone simultaneously bang on about logic, and struggle with it, to this extent.
While I am at it, "X has always happened therefore X will always happen is also a logical fallacy" is bollocks. It is called inductive reasoning. Wanna bet about the sun rising tomorrow?
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
I am genuinely open minded about the possibility that Covid originated from a Lab leak. But you have posted on here for months (years maybe) that Lab leak was proved, with no possibility of any other explanation.
I can only conclude that some people (e.g. you) are desperate to have it accepted as proven it. Why?
FWIW, my view is we will never know. But it seems pretty damned suspicious that there happened to be a lab researching viruses in Wuhan.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
I am genuinely open minded about the possibility that Covid originated from a Lab leak. But you have posted on here for months (years maybe) that Lab leak was proved, with no possibility of any other explanation.
I can only conclude that some people (e.g. you) are desperate to have it accepted as proven it. Why?
FWIW, my view is we will never know. But it seems pretty damned suspicious that there happened to be a lab researching viruses in Wuhan.
Not just researching viruses, researching coronaviruses and deliberately making them worse.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
The idea that new leaders don't usually get positive coverage is an utterly bizarre one, I'm afraid I have no idea where you get that from.
In this case, Sunak isn't exactly new anyway.
If you are talking about a new leader THEREFORE positive coverage THEREFORE bounce, your honeymoon metaphor is so shit and inappropriate that you should be disclaiming, not using, it. Never known anyone simultaneously bang on about logic, and struggle with it, to this extent.
While I am at it, "X has always happened therefore X will always happen is also a logical fallacy" is bollocks. It is called inductive reasoning. Wanna bet about the sun rising tomorrow?
It's not my metaphor! Jesus wept...
As for the sun rising tomorrow, there's solid science behind that physical phenomenon. Human actions and reactions are somewhat more difficult.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I don't think this is a honeymoon period becuse it doesn't feel like a honeymoon period.
MoonRabbit's argument, such that it is, is "this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, therefore this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories". It could be correct that this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, but that's just an assumption. It's plausible, bit there's no logic or evidence for it.
logic or evidence for it.
Logic and evidence comes from historical precedent. If you put all these same conditions into a test tube over and over you can reasonably begin to guess likely outcomes. One of the most obvious ones you are missing (actually that’s too polite, you are deliberately spinning desperate waffle) is that decisions that piss off voters hurt you in polls, wherever you start you do go lower, ditto replace “piss off” with “get all the blame for” will also lower you from starting point.
Both those two test tubes”pissing off voters with tax increases and service cuts” and “blame for interest rate rise and lack of growth” will be fizzing away for the next two years, in all logical likelihood
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
The lab leak is circumstantially very highly plausible.
But the evidence for it is exactly the same as it's always been: that the outbreak started very close to a place where bat viruses were being studied. There's no new evidence, and unless a lab worker came out and said something (which is unlikely given China's government), then the situation is likely to remain the same in perpetuity.
The secret British intelligence plot to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge is revealed in internal documents and correspondence obtained exclusively by The Grayzone.
The Grayzone has obtained an April 2022 presentation drawn up for senior British intelligence officers hashing out an elaborate scheme to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge with the involvement of specially trained Ukrainian soldiers. Almost six months after the plan was circulated, Kerch Bridge was attacked in an October 8th suicide bombing apparently overseen by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence services.
That new Black Panther movie must be absolute pants, just saw a trailer for it at the cinema which was of the actors saying how important a movie it was and how amazing - it's never a good sign when even a trailer cannot be made good, so they retreat to getting the actors to just tell us it is good.
To be fair the first one was utter shit too. It's a rare sequel that digs its way out of hole that deep. Has there ever been a good sequels to really bad first film?
Arguably The Empire strikes back was better than the original Star Wars. And Terminator 2 was better but neither of the first efforts were absolutely awful.
Aliens was better than Alien, IMHO - original was too long and slow.
The original was filmed on a budget of $11m, so you can’t really fairly compare.
That Vanity Fair article is explosive. It came from the lab, almost certainly
What will this do to West/China relations?
What will it do to virology, and science at large?
Tony Fauci needs to go on trial and - if convicted - do time, as do many top boffins around the world who conspired in the cover-up - Vallance and Farrar in the UK, for a start - and many others
Peter Daszak and others close to the crime need Nuremberg Trials with potential execution at the end, if convicted. Twenty MILLION people have died. Worse than World War One
I have always believed that it came from a lab. Nothing else made sense. The question was whether they did this deliberately or by cock up. Cock up has always looked a strong favourite to me and it remains so. A further and more problematic question was whether it was acceptable for them doing this kind of research in the first place. To which the obvious answer is no. At that point relations do become more problematic.
Why ‘nothing else’? New viruses make the transition between species rather frequently. What do you is the origin of the original SARS? Or MERS? It’s possible it came from the lab, for sure, but asserting ‘nothing else’ makes sense is too strong.
Absolutely. HIV is an obvious other one. In my adult lifetime there have been two newsworthy lab leaks in the UK (Smallpox and Foot and Mouth), although neither were of an engineered virus so not as good a story for those looking for one. It seems to me that both origins are plausible and contrary to Leon's conspiracy theories either could be true. Unfortunately he might post something that is relevant in his hundreds of posts, but there is so much crap he believes in that it is like the crying wolf story and you miss the gems for all the crap. Has anyone heard anymore about the hundreds of UFOs flying over the Ukraine?
There have been frequent worldwide pandemics through recorded history, even when travel was much less frequent - e.g. the Black Death in the mid 1300s. None of these started in 'labs'. Therefore it is perfectly possible for new diseases and pestilences to pop up and spread. In fact, it is to be expected.
In the 1900s, we had the 1918 'Spanish' flu. The 1957 pandemic. The 1980s AIDS crisis.
This does not mean that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible; just that 'natural' outbreaks of novel diseases are hardly unknown or amazing.
Not sure @Jossiasjessop whether you thought I was posting something different (and I had badly worded it) or whether you were just supporting my argument, but I agree with you 100%
That new Black Panther movie must be absolute pants, just saw a trailer for it at the cinema which was of the actors saying how important a movie it was and how amazing - it's never a good sign when even a trailer cannot be made good, so they retreat to getting the actors to just tell us it is good.
To be fair the first one was utter shit too. It's a rare sequel that digs its way out of hole that deep. Has there ever been a good sequels to really bad first film?
Arguably The Empire strikes back was better than the original Star Wars. And Terminator 2 was better but neither of the first efforts were absolutely awful.
Aliens was better than Alien, IMHO - original was too long and slow.
The original was filmed on a budget of $11m, so you can’t really fairly compare.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
The lab leak is circumstantially very highly plausible.
But the evidence for it is exactly the same as it's always been: that the outbreak started very close to a place where bat viruses were being studied. There's no new evidence, and unless a lab worker came out and said something (which is unlikely given China's government), then the situation is likely to remain the same in perpetuity.
If Suella Braverman was in anyway involved, she would have leaked it.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I don't think this is a honeymoon period becuse it doesn't feel like a honeymoon period.
MoonRabbit's argument, such that it is, is "this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, therefore this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories". It could be correct that this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, but that's just an assumption. It's plausible, bit there's no logic or evidence for it.
logic or evidence for it.
Logic and evidence comes from historical precedent. If you put all these same conditions into a test tube over and over you can reasonably begin to guess likely outcomes. One of the most obvious ones you are missing (actually that’s too polite, you are deliberately spinning desperate waffle) is that decisions that piss off voters hurt you in polls, wherever you start you do go lower, ditto replace “piss off” with “get all the blame for” will also lower you from starting point.
Both those two test tubes”pissing off voters with tax increases and service cuts” and “blame for interest rate rise and lack of growth” will be fizzing away for the next two years, in all logical likelihood
In normal circumstances, you're right - and this would apply especially when a new government is elected.
But these are far from normal circumstances. The Tories have sunk so low that there may well be a chunk of voters that can be won back but only by delivering (perceived) good things. What has Sunak done that could possibly make voters who Truss repelled give him the benefit of the doubt? Nothing! And he won't have an opportunity to do so until the Autumn budget. The polls in the aftermath of that will be a better "starting point" than those now.
We’re having a productive day it seems. I wonder if Vlad’s been having a chat with his friend Ayatollah Khamenei who reminded him that the sly English fox is the invisible puppet master behind everything, controlling the Americans and even Israel. Perhaps the Brits are behind the genetically engineered robot mosquitoes too.
I have a friend of Iranian heritage, he tells me that there is a saying (that goes back to Persian times):
If you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there.
I'm sure I've seen the British described by the Iranian government as something like the original or ultimate Satan, that is even worse than the great Satan the USA.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
To recap one of my favourite sad graphs;
The main way is down for our satisfaction with Prime Ministers. We start not knowing much about them and get disappointed as we discover more. In large part that's because we collectively hope that this one, the new one, will be the promised Messiah. At worst, they turn out to be a very naughty boy, at best they just don't fulfil our hopes. And that's partly our fault as voters in pinning too many hopes on them.
Is this an immutable law of nature? Of course not. But if the data point one way and there's a plausible mechanism explaining why, you need to be pretty exceptional to be an exception.
Conclusion: Rishi's not dead yet. And he's almost certainly the best leader for the Conservatives. But he's not cut through anything like sufficiently yet, and this is his best chance. If he doesn't do so by (say) the not-Budget next month, it's not obvious when he will.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
That's one ludicrous claim (vaccines are dangerous) and two plausible theories.
Masks are unpleasant to wear (at least in my view) and the benefit is limited, but they are not inherently bad.
It's a plausible theory that the limited benefit is outweighed by the downsides. Whether that would count as "bad" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
We’re having a productive day it seems. I wonder if Vlad’s been having a chat with his friend Ayatollah Khamenei who reminded him that the sly English fox is the invisible puppet master behind everything, controlling the Americans and even Israel. Perhaps the Brits are behind the genetically engineered robot mosquitoes too.
I have a friend of Iranian heritage, he tells me that there is a saying (that goes back to Persian times):
If you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there.
I remember hearing an interview with a former Foreign Sec who said the running joke in the F.O was that Iran was the only country in the world who still thought Britain was a superpower.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
Yes, the fact that Trump picked it up obviously means it's idiotic racist nonsense.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
To recap one of my favourite sad graphs;
The main way is down for our satisfaction with Prime Ministers. We start not knowing much about them and get disappointed as we discover more. In large part that's because we collectively hope that this one, the new one, will be the promised Messiah. At worst, they turn out to be a very naughty boy, at best they just don't fulfil our hopes. And that's partly our fault as voters in pinning too many hopes on them.
Is this an immutable law of nature? Of course not. But if the data point one way and there's a plausible mechanism explaining why, you need to be pretty exceptional to be an exception.
Conclusion: Rishi's not dead yet. And he's almost certainly the best leader for the Conservatives. But he's not cut through anything like sufficiently yet, and this is his best chance. If he doesn't do so by (say) the not-Budget next month, it's not obvious when he will.
It's not howlingly obvious how the not Budget can increase his popularity either.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
The trouble is Leon you come out with so much bollocks that when you do come out with something that might be correct we all think it is more bollocks.
That Vanity Fair article is explosive. It came from the lab, almost certainly
What will this do to West/China relations?
What will it do to virology, and science at large?
Tony Fauci needs to go on trial and - if convicted - do time, as do many top boffins around the world who conspired in the cover-up - Vallance and Farrar in the UK, for a start - and many others
Peter Daszak and others close to the crime need Nuremberg Trials with potential execution at the end, if convicted. Twenty MILLION people have died. Worse than World War One
I have always believed that it came from a lab. Nothing else made sense. The question was whether they did this deliberately or by cock up. Cock up has always looked a strong favourite to me and it remains so. A further and more problematic question was whether it was acceptable for them doing this kind of research in the first place. To which the obvious answer is no. At that point relations do become more problematic.
Why ‘nothing else’? New viruses make the transition between species rather frequently. What do you is the origin of the original SARS? Or MERS? It’s possible it came from the lab, for sure, but asserting ‘nothing else’ makes sense is too strong.
Absolutely. HIV is an obvious other one. In my adult lifetime there have been two newsworthy lab leaks in the UK (Smallpox and Foot and Mouth), although neither were of an engineered virus so not as good a story for those looking for one. It seems to me that both origins are plausible and contrary to Leon's conspiracy theories either could be true. Unfortunately he might post something that is relevant in his hundreds of posts, but there is so much crap he believes in that it is like the crying wolf story and you miss the gems for all the crap. Has anyone heard anymore about the hundreds of UFOs flying over the Ukraine?
There have been frequent worldwide pandemics through recorded history, even when travel was much less frequent - e.g. the Black Death in the mid 1300s. None of these started in 'labs'. Therefore it is perfectly possible for new diseases and pestilences to pop up and spread. In fact, it is to be expected.
In the 1900s, we had the 1918 'Spanish' flu. The 1957 pandemic. The 1980s AIDS crisis.
This does not mean that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible; just that 'natural' outbreaks of novel diseases are hardly unknown or amazing.
Worth noting that jumps of animal diseases to human populations are not unusual. Notably BSE/CJD, ebola, HIV as well as multiple flu variants and even the Coronavirus in MERS.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
The obvious suggestion is that you want to believe it so much, that it probably isn’t true.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
The lab leak is circumstantially very highly plausible.
But the evidence for it is exactly the same as it's always been: that the outbreak started very close to a place where bat viruses were being studied. There's no new evidence, and unless a lab worker came out and said something (which is unlikely given China's government), then the situation is likely to remain the same in perpetuity.
The other piece of evidence (what would it be called? It’s not really circumstantial) is that they’ve failed to prove the animal transmission chain. They have absolutely been looking and testing and trying… once you exclude the alternatives whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth…
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
To recap one of my favourite sad graphs;
The main way is down for our satisfaction with Prime Ministers. We start not knowing much about them and get disappointed as we discover more. In large part that's because we collectively hope that this one, the new one, will be the promised Messiah. At worst, they turn out to be a very naughty boy, at best they just don't fulfil our hopes. And that's partly our fault as voters in pinning too many hopes on them.
Is this an immutable law of nature? Of course not. But if the data point one way and there's a plausible mechanism explaining why, you need to be pretty exceptional to be an exception.
Conclusion: Rishi's not dead yet. And he's almost certainly the best leader for the Conservatives. But he's not cut through anything like sufficiently yet, and this is his best chance. If he doesn't do so by (say) the not-Budget next month, it's not obvious when he will.
Johnson's COVID uplift and subsequent re-evaluation/downgrade is the nearest to "unusual" in that whole collection. Such events as would allow Sunak to be similarly exceptional I hope we don't have to endure.
When we live through the ups and downs, we fail to heed the trend, and I doubt the trend will be any different.
Eddie Howe has made a massive difference. The owners have spent money, but not gone mad like a child in a sweetshop.
Decent performance today for Leicester, could easily have had a point off Man City. The team looks a lot happier defending. I now think we will stay up.
Why do the trolls always end up on COVID conspiracy theories? Vaccines are dangerous, masks are bad, it came from a lab leak… on and on.
Because people like you associate two ludicrous claims (vaccines are dangerous and masks are bad) with a plausible theory (lab leak).
I still can’t work out the psychology of this. Lab Leak is, circumstantially, very highly plausible. And the evidence grows over time, rather than the opposite
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
The trouble is Leon you come out with so much bollocks that when you do come out with something that might be correct we all think it is more bollocks.
You might have a point if it was only Leon coming out with this hypothesis. I suspect even Leon would take most of what he claims with a pinch of salt. But he is right that the Lab leak idea has been desperately attacked even when other, perhaps more level, heads have suggested it. There does seem to be some deep rooted antipathy to the slightest suggestion that this was anything other than a 'natural' occurrence.
This year, when the war in Ukraine began to go badly for Russia, the Kremlin yanked the 11th Army Corps from Kaliningrad and sent it into Ukraine. Where the Ukrainian army quickly destroyed it.…
On The Guardian article about Sunak. It's not The Guardian, is it, or one of their journalists? It's written by Pankaj Mishra, an Indian essayist and novelist. Yes, it's a controversial argument. But it's not The Guardian's view; it's Mishra's.
The Guardian obviously decided to publish it. I assume we're all in favour of freedom of speech?
Sure, but there are different standards for what should be against the law and what should be in a mainstream national press article.
Saying it shouldn't be published is just silly. For the author, Rishi (like many of his race both here and abroad) is a fully signed-up member of a divisive and oppressive political tradition. So he's not going to say, 'Ooo goody! Let's put all that aside because Rishi's the same race as me'. That seems a perfectly understandable position.
No, it is fine to attack Rishi on the grounds of austerity or a lack of empathy with the poor. It is not fine to attack him on the combination of his race and austerity or lack of empathy. At least it should not be in a mainstream UK press article.
For free speech enthusiasts that of course does not preclude such views being shared legally outside the mainstream.
We have now had 7 polls since Rishi Sunak took over. Here’s the average VI (compared to average VI in the last 7 polls under Truss):
Lab 51.4% (-1.6) Con 24.3% (+2.9) LD 8.9% (-0.7) Ref 5.2% (+1.2) SNP 4.4% (+0.4) Grn 4.3% (+0.2)
In other words, not much change. Certainly not enough to calm Tory nerves.
How long will the party wait without an upswing before they become restless again? A month? Six months? Certainly not a year.
A 27% point deficit for the governing party during their leader's honeymoon period should set the alarm bells ringing.
Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period.
Isn’t it? Isn’t a new leader bounce a proven historical precedence?
Would you like to explain what you mean?
It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage. "Relief that Truss has gone" is not positive coverage.
Sunak has taken over in an unprecedented position of shittiness. Suggesting he's failing because he hasn't bounced to 35% overnight shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances.
So instead of a honeymoon bounce, you see Rishi Sunak slowly dragging the Tories back to towards 35% over the coming two years till the election?
I don't think the lack of an immediate bounce to 35% necessarily precludes a slow climb to 35%. Obviously lots of things have to start going right to reach that high, but there's a long time to go until the election.
I disagree. My reading of the political situation, economic situation and polling is completely opposite from your argument.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in
I'm going to stop you there, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. This is a sufficient logical fallacy that it renders the rest of your argument irrelevant, I'm afraid.
But earlier you said: "Lefties keep talking about a "honeymoon period" which is just a sign they aren't paying attention. This is not a honeymoon period. "
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
I am baffled by the stipulation that "It's not remotely a honeymoon period - that requires there to be positive coverage." Honeymoons don't usually get, or require, "coverage" of any kind. The metaphor is very, very simple: you like what is new simply because it is new and you have yet to identify its defects.
To recap one of my favourite sad graphs;
The main way is down for our satisfaction with Prime Ministers. We start not knowing much about them and get disappointed as we discover more. In large part that's because we collectively hope that this one, the new one, will be the promised Messiah. At worst, they turn out to be a very naughty boy, at best they just don't fulfil our hopes. And that's partly our fault as voters in pinning too many hopes on them.
Is this an immutable law of nature? Of course not. But if the data point one way and there's a plausible mechanism explaining why, you need to be pretty exceptional to be an exception.
Conclusion: Rishi's not dead yet. And he's almost certainly the best leader for the Conservatives. But he's not cut through anything like sufficiently yet, and this is his best chance. If he doesn't do so by (say) the not-Budget next month, it's not obvious when he will.
I agree with all of this, however this is talking about PM satisfaction ratings which don't always have a strong correlation with voting intention.
Comments
Although I'd prefer to see myself as being a furball...
Deaths from smoking fell dramatically after it was stigmatised but disapproval of the overweight is still thought cruel
Matthew Parris" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fat-shaming-is-only-way-to-beat-obesity-crisis-h76pzqvpj
The Russians try to bury the truth behind many different stories. It does not matter how contradictory the stories are the more there are, the more the truth gets buried below a load of sh*t.
That article is obviously not attacking him because he is not white, but because of his political beliefs. Probably most of the people attacking it do understand that, but all's fair in love and war.
The Guardian obviously decided to publish it. I assume we're all in favour of freedom of speech?
But I'm curious about this line on the BBC site.
In recent days, Russia has been engaged in what US and Ukrainian officials describe as a disinformation campaign, with unsubstantiated claims that Kyiv is preparing to use a radioactive dirty bomb, or even biological mosquitoes.
What's a non-biological mosquito?
To quit smoking means not smoking anymore. Give an ex-smoker a cigarette and they're liable to have more than one.
To quit drinking means not drinking any more. Give a recovering alcohol a drink and they're liable to have more than one.
To quit eating means death.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/28/rishi-sunak-britain-first-hindu-prime-minister-destroying-tories-pitiful-vision-of-diversity
Rather well written in places, but poisonous.
In the 1900s, we had the 1918 'Spanish' flu. The 1957 pandemic. The 1980s AIDS crisis.
This does not mean that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible; just that 'natural' outbreaks of novel diseases are hardly unknown or amazing.
"An anti-woke chief constable who promoted a “back to basics” strategy has lifted Greater Manchester Police (GMP) out of special measures in less than 18 months.
Under Stephen Watson’s leadership 999 call answer times have been cut from an average of one minute 22 seconds to seven seconds, response times have been reduced and arrests have increased by 60 per cent. He has also ordered officers to improve their public image by ironing uniforms, polishing boots, shaving and tying up long hair.
When he was appointed, Watson set out his stall as the “anti-woke” chief constable. Asked if he would take the knee at protests like other policing leaders, he replied no, adding: “I would probably kneel before the Queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it.”
He has railed against “virtue-signalling” police officers who put rainbows on their epaulettes and said the public would rather they locked up burglars.
Watson has said that when he arrived he found officers so demoralised they were failing to investigate offences such as shoplifting, petrol station forecourt drive-offs, vehicle crime and burglary.
Officers had been too “reactive” rather than out on the beat trying to prevent crime, he added."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-woke-police-chief-lifts-greater-manchester-forces-999-and-arrest-rates-rrzs36kkz
Most new PMs have a clear external driver for change (retirement - May was different but “get Brexit done” was a powerful slogan). Therefore it was fair to give the new guy/gal a chance.
On this occasion Rishi has to earn the right for the Tories to be heard first
Russia said that Ukrainian forces, with the help of drones, attacked ships from the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, the biggest city in Russian-annexed Crimea, in the early hours of Saturday.
"Taking into account... the terrorist act by the Kyiv regime with the participation of British experts against the ships of the Black Sea Fleet and civilian vessels involved in ensuring the security of the "grain corridor", the Russian side suspends participation in the implementation of agreements on the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports," the ministry said in a statement
emphasis added
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-suspends-participation-deal-ukraine-grain-exports-tass-2022-10-29/
Chinese politicians and scientists are decent middle class chaps rather like us in suits and ties or lab coats, who would never make a mistake or cover it up if they did. Whereas the Chinese poor are as disgusting as poor people everywhere and routinely bite the heads off live bats in wet markets.
Seems to be the train of thought.
A bounce from the honeymoon period we are in, with all the extensive positive media coverage, is important because of the historical precedent those who get good early results with voters can be winners, those who don’t get them are certain losers. If there isn’t that instant appeal of freshness and competence from Sunak straight after Truss and Boris, then he is unlikely to ever appear any more favourable in eyes of voters after mistakes and painful decisions.
It’s not just we are about to enter a rocky road between government and voters for two years, where voters won’t like tax rises, public spending cuts, but the way the Torys melted down this year they are inviting blame for the pain, blame for the high interest rates, blame for the lack growth - it’s only a honeymoon bounce convinces us the narrative could play out differently from that, that despairing voters are minded to give Sunak a chance.
Quite the opposite from your argument, the truth is no polling bounce to average in 30s this November, and the Tories are clearly facing one of the worse popularity crisis in their history, far worse than 97.
Heads that turn around failing schools will often do similar (uniforms/stricter rules), but to be successful in the long term they need to do a hell of a lot more. I expect the anti-woke stuff is a mix of PR for the press, while signalling that change is coming to the staff. The actual changes in delivery are almost certainly down to him being very good at understanding how a good police force works, and being a clever manager.
If you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there.
Aren't you also just assuming what you're trying to prove?
PS You're also being extremely arrogant and irritating in disregarding and cutting @Moonrabbit's very plausible argument.
Dozens treated for cardiac arrest in Halloween crowds.
Edit: Twitter reporting it as being a crush.
Possibly the way of reporting medical deaths in Korea? I seem to recall similar usage in Japan for Abe.
As I explained in my reasoning, this particular honeymoon period is even more vital and Illustrative than most honeymoon periods, very much like if major was replaced as leader in 95, if some voters have not already made up their minds how to vote (for Black Wednesday read Truss mistakes) then they very soon will do, long before actual election.
Just like the leader replacing Major in 95 desperately needed to show bounce in their honeymoon period, ditto for Sunak here.
MoonRabbit's argument, such that it is, is "this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, therefore this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories". It could be correct that this is as good as it's going to get for the Tories, but that's just an assumption. It's plausible, bit there's no logic or evidence for it.
I spend a lot of time focusing on the implications of One Health. If you think about it logically, novel viruses in humans can either come from spontaneous mutation (which is very unlikely that it would be so major as to be a “new virus”) or from zoonotic transmission. You are right, though, that population growth and reservoir penetration is increasing the frequency of new encounters.
But there has been no good evidence of the intermediate treaty. Given the way that the Chinese have closed access to the mines and they effort they are going to to obstruct investigation don’t you think they would have shouted loudly if they had found the transmission pathway?
Using the old Sherlock Holmes approach the most likely explanation is a lab leak… I expect due to accident and/or bad practice rather than deliberate but we will never be able to prove that
Particularly in Scotland.
Yet apparently sane people are desperate to deny it. To the extent of vapid lunacy
Why? Because blaming the Chinese labs is racist? It’s not like “OMG they eat bats” is LESS racist
I can understand why some scientists might fear the hypothesis. For the rest it must be a simple fear of anything Trump claimed turning out to be true?
I am open to other suggestions
In this case, Sunak isn't exactly new anyway.
Unbelievable footage from one of the marine drones used in the attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.
(Via Ukrainian journalist Andriy Tsaplienko)
Full story: https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63437212
https://twitter.com/JamWaterhouse/status/1586358395933970433
There's no way that forces are failing because they're attending too many Pride marches, or too busy taking the knee. That would have almost no effect on the day to day work. They're failing because of poor organisational management. The anti-woke stuff is PR.
I can only conclude that some people (e.g. you) are desperate to have it accepted as proven it. Why?
You just don't want to face-up to the problems of Wokery because it goes against your world view.
While I am at it, "X has always happened therefore X will always happen is also a logical fallacy" is bollocks. It is called inductive reasoning. Wanna bet about the sun rising tomorrow?
As for the sun rising tomorrow, there's solid science behind that physical phenomenon. Human actions and reactions are somewhat more difficult.
Logic and evidence comes from historical precedent. If you put all these same conditions into a test tube over and over you can reasonably begin to guess likely outcomes. One of the most obvious ones you are missing (actually that’s too polite, you are deliberately spinning desperate waffle) is that decisions that piss off voters hurt you in polls, wherever you start you do go lower, ditto replace “piss off” with “get all the blame for” will also lower you from starting point.
Both those two test tubes”pissing off voters with tax increases and service cuts” and “blame for interest rate rise and lack of growth” will be fizzing away for the next two years, in all logical likelihood
But the evidence for it is exactly the same as it's always been: that the outbreak started very close to a place where bat viruses were being studied. There's no new evidence, and unless a lab worker came out and said something (which is unlikely given China's government), then the situation is likely to remain the same in perpetuity.
But these are far from normal circumstances. The Tories have sunk so low that there may well be a chunk of voters that can be won back but only by delivering (perceived) good things. What has Sunak done that could possibly make voters who Truss repelled give him the benefit of the doubt? Nothing! And he won't have an opportunity to do so until the Autumn budget. The polls in the aftermath of that will be a better "starting point" than those now.
The main way is down for our satisfaction with Prime Ministers. We start not knowing much about them and get disappointed as we discover more. In large part that's because we collectively hope that this one, the new one, will be the promised Messiah. At worst, they turn out to be a very naughty boy, at best they just don't fulfil our hopes. And that's partly our fault as voters in pinning too many hopes on them.
Is this an immutable law of nature? Of course not. But if the data point one way and there's a plausible mechanism explaining why, you need to be pretty exceptional to be an exception.
Conclusion: Rishi's not dead yet. And he's almost certainly the best leader for the Conservatives. But he's not cut through anything like sufficiently yet, and this is his best chance. If he doesn't do so by (say) the not-Budget next month, it's not obvious when he will.
All these within my working lifetime.
When we live through the ups and downs, we fail to heed the trend, and I doubt the trend will be any different.
Decent performance today for Leicester, could easily have had a point off Man City. The team looks a lot happier defending. I now think we will stay up.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/10/27/12000-russian-troops-once-posed-a-threat-from-inside-nato-then-they-went-to-ukraine-to-die/
… Six years ago, the Russian navy formed a new army corps whose job it would be to defend Kaliningrad, Russia’s geographically separate outpost on the Baltic Sea between Poland and Lithuania.
This year, when the war in Ukraine began to go badly for Russia, the Kremlin yanked the 11th Army Corps from Kaliningrad and sent it into Ukraine. Where the Ukrainian army quickly destroyed it.…
For free speech enthusiasts that of course does not preclude such views being shared legally outside the mainstream.