Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Has Sunak got his own lockdown secret that he’s trying to hide? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,916
edited June 2023 in General
imageHas Sunak got his own lockdown secret that he’s trying to hide? – politicalbetting.com

Paul Waugh in the Indy has a good piece pondering why Sunak is going to such lengths to avoid scrutiny over what he was doing during lock-down. The mere fact that this is all going to court could suggests that there is something that he doesn’t want to be made public.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,620
    edited June 2023
    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,474
    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    Freedland: For Johnson has stripped away the veneer of supposedly disinterested justification that Sunak had applied to his application for a judicial review, of Hallett’s insistence on seeing everything. Sunak can no longer claim to be defending the privacy of a predecessor, because the predecessor is happy to let it all hang out – my apologies for that image – or at least to give that impression: in fact, the material Johnson has handed over is not from the phone he used in the crucial period.

    Still, Sunak’s reticence has been exposed as self-interested. He wants to keep to a minimum the embarrassments of the Covid era, because they remind many millions of voters exactly when and why they came to despise this government. And, more self-interestedly still, the PM fears that Hallett is about to set a precedent for full disclosure – which means the investigators could soon demand to see every message on his phone.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited June 2023

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,309
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: no tip, but a little pre-qualifying musing: https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/06/spain-pre-qualifying-2023.html

    I think it'll be interesting to see how axing the chicane affects racing. While I expect Verstappen to win handily, that difference could make for more passing.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    And now, have a nice day. It's another glorious one in Devon: day after day after day of blue skies.

    It's a shame the FA Cup Final isn't a little later in the afternoon as it cuts into the day, but one not to miss I feel.

    xx
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,635
    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    If Sunak is hiding something, it's going to come out quite soon.

    If something big comes out, he's in serious -- probably terminal -- trouble.

    If it's terminal, the pressure for a (not that early) General Election will become intense.

    I see that it's 10/1 that the next General Election will be in 2023. I might have expected longer odds, but given the above I wonder if, nonetheless, there's some value there, if only as a trading bet?

    Disclosure: I've never placed a bet in my life (I married a Methodist). Which may make my long years of lurking here seem all the odder, but I lurk (and occasionally post some ill-considered tripe here) nonetheless!

    My instinct is that they will brazen out whatever it is as long as they can, and delay and filibuster and appeal for as long as possible to stop anything coming out - so for me 10/1 is not appealing; something like 18s would be more tempting.

    I’d add that given current inflation rates tying up money in bets that won’t see returns for some time aren’t appealing either.

    All that being said, the cardinal rule of gambling is to never bet what you can’t afford to lose, and at the moment I don’t have spare cash for gambling.

  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,143
    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    Punters need no words of caution. We take our own risks and bear our own losses. Nevertheless I agree with you that the GE is likely to be a bloodbath.

    It isn't just the Pandemic and how it was handled. It isn't just the Government's public and private dishonesty. It's that over thirteen years voters have accumulated enough reasons to punish them, and this time round there is no chimera, like Brexit, or bogeyman, like Corbyn, to scare them out of doing it.

    The reasons for voting out the Government will vary from individual to individual. Some will be more common than others. I expect anger at the privations of lockdown whilst members of the Government were playing fast and loose with the regulations will run deep in many cases, but it is far from the only offence for which retribution will be taken.

    I agree with you therefore, Heathener, and disagree respectfully with OGH. I am anticipating a bloodbath, and would gently advise friends who are betting against it to moderate their stakes.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,474
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Agree. For what it’s worth in my view the first lockdown was absolutely vital, the second was advisable and the third was unnecessary. The flight of the right to anti-science is perplexing, as policy responses should be rooted basically in an open understanding of scientific evidence, even allowing for political nuance.

    There is no question that in Mar 2020 it was lockdown or public health collapse.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998

    If Sunak is hiding something, it's going to come out quite soon.

    If something big comes out, he's in serious -- probably terminal -- trouble.

    If it's terminal, the pressure for a (not that early) General Election will become intense.

    I see that it's 10/1 that the next General Election will be in 2023. I might have expected longer odds, but given the above I wonder if, nonetheless, there's some value there, if only as a trading bet?

    Disclosure: I've never placed a bet in my life (I married a Methodist). Which may make my long years of lurking here seem all the odder, but I lurk (and occasionally post some ill-considered tripe here) nonetheless!

    You married a Methodist? That was a huge gamble, wasn't it?
    They don't wine about it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Agree. For what it’s worth in my view the first lockdown was absolutely vital, the second was advisable and the third was unnecessary. The flight of the right to anti-science is perplexing, as policy responses should be rooted basically in an open understanding of scientific evidence, even allowing for political nuance.

    There is no question that in Mar 2020 it was lockdown or public health collapse.
    The issue was not that the third one was unnecessary. It was that it could potentially have been avoided if the second one hadn't been comprehensively bungled.

    The determination to avoid locking down - for example, from my own experience, ordering schools to stay open when they couldn't actually staff their lessons, refusing to consider phased lessons and even simple things like ordering staff who should according to law have been isolating to go into work - meant, ironically, that another full lockdown became necessary.
  • Options
    Chris said:

    Of course, if Sunak were trying to hide something, it would make perfect sense of Johnson's sudden enthusiasm for full disclosure.

    It is intriguing to consider what the government (or Sunak) might be trying to hide. Many things have already been suggested or hinted at, and so in many people's minds, one or more of them are likely true, and the damage is already done. Are they really hanging themselves out like this on a point of principle over privacy? Or is there something more terrible in there than anyone has ever yet considered?

    If it's true that they are unlikely to be successful in their legal bid to decide for themselves, what is relevant to the Inquiry, is there some benefit to them in stalling for time?

    It does seem as though Boris may know the answer, or is he just playing a game of his own?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited June 2023
    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....

    (edit/ I am making the assumption here that the MPs on the Labour whips' blacklist were all their own, which does seem to be the inference of the story, but I haven't seen explicitly stated)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998
    edited June 2023
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....
    Labour MPs or all MPs?

    Edit - also, those six elected in 2019 still be included in your final figure as you said 'being left alone' without qualifying it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited June 2023
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....
    Labour MPs or all MPs?

    Edit - also, those six elected in 2019 still be included in your final figure as you said 'being left alone' without qualifying it.
    Per my edit above

    And per your edit, assuming the chances are the same with the new lot as the old lot!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....
    You are assuming that the 30 were all Labour. I very much doubt that. Still a significant number out of a House of 646 (excluding SF) though, especially if women and gays are excluded. Politics attracts weirdo’s, no doubt about it.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,666
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Agree. For what it’s worth in my view the first lockdown was absolutely vital, the second was advisable and the third was unnecessary. The flight of the right to anti-science is perplexing, as policy responses should be rooted basically in an open understanding of scientific evidence, even allowing for political nuance.

    There is no question that in Mar 2020 it was lockdown or public health collapse.
    The issue was not that the third one was unnecessary. It was that it could potentially have been avoided if the second one hadn't been comprehensively bungled.

    The determination to avoid locking down - for example, from my own experience, ordering schools to stay open when they couldn't actually staff their lessons, refusing to consider phased lessons and even simple things like ordering staff who should according to law have been isolating to go into work - meant, ironically, that another full lockdown became necessary.
    In other words, competence matters.

    Since the Conservative party was remade in BoJo's wobbly image, it's been good at persuading people that it wants personal freedom, national vigour, levelling up yada yada. But loudly wanting something isn't enough.

    Unfortunately, the things it has done and the way it has gone about them have left us less free, less vigorous and more dependent on City middlemen than before.

    The long lockdown at the start of 2021 was the price we paid for the unsuccessful attempt to save Christmas 2020.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,208
    Good morning

    Sunak and the government prevarication over this matter will lead to the question what is being hidden

    Personally I think it is an own goal, but Sunak is not good at politics and is more a technocrat than most PM’S

    Johnson of course must think we are all easily led when he says he is submitting his what's app etc direct to the inquiry but conveniently only from May 21 when he announced the enquiry, and his important what's app etc over the previous 15 months have just disappeared into space

    The conservative party need to go into opposition and rediscover their one nation credentials and it is not unreasonable to expect a substantial loss for them at GE24

    However, I do not subscribe to the narrative that Starmer is the new messiah that will deliver the nation from the deep and long standing fractures following covid, the war in Ukraine, and to a degree Brexit. Indeed my preferred result for GE 24 would be a minority led Labour government or a Labour government with a small majority

    Anyway back to discussing the Scholfield media drama no doubt but not for me

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,032

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Agree. For what it’s worth in my view the first lockdown was absolutely vital, the second was advisable and the third was unnecessary.
    Some of us remember that Starmer would have locked us down for a further Christmas.

    I'm sure we will all remember it when it comes time to vote.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,635

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203

    Good morning

    Sunak and the government prevarication over this matter will lead to the question what is being hidden

    Personally I think it is an own goal, but Sunak is not good at politics and is more a technocrat than most PM’S

    Johnson of course must think we are all easily led when he says he is submitting his what's app etc direct to the inquiry but conveniently only from May 21 when he announced the enquiry, and his important what's app etc over the previous 15 months have just disappeared into space

    The conservative party need to go into opposition and rediscover their one nation credentials and it is not unreasonable to expect a substantial loss for them at GE24

    However,. Indeed my preferred result for GE 24 would be a minority led Labour government or a Labour government with a small majority

    Anyway back to discussing the Scholfield media drama no doubt but not for me

    “… I do not subscribe to the narrative that Starmer is the new messiah that will deliver the nation from the deep and long standing fractures following covid, the war in Ukraine, and to a degree Brexit…”

    WTF? Point me to a person, one person, who has come close, within a mile, to describing Starmer as a “new messiah”. As I pointed out to BJO the other day the level of ire Starmer creates in his opponents is wholly disproportionate to the enthusiasm he generates in his supporters. Nobody, literally nobody, thinks that he’s going to do all that. I say that as a Labour voter.

    As for your implication that the war in Ukraine has fractured the country more than Brexit, can I have some of what you’re smoking? Are you that more a handful of Trots and nutters are supporting Russia?

  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,208

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    My wife and I are going for our 6th vaccination tomorrow
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203

    If Sunak is hiding something, it's going to come out quite soon.

    If something big comes out, he's in serious -- probably terminal -- trouble.

    If it's terminal, the pressure for a (not that early) General Election will become intense.

    I see that it's 10/1 that the next General Election will be in 2023. I might have expected longer odds, but given the above I wonder if, nonetheless, there's some value there, if only as a trading bet?

    Disclosure: I've never placed a bet in my life (I married a Methodist). Which may make my long years of lurking here seem all the odder, but I lurk (and occasionally post some ill-considered tripe here) nonetheless!

    Other than backing Truss for next leader I don’t really gamble either but I consider than to be more of an investment.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701
    edited June 2023
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....

    (edit/ I am making the assumption here that the MPs on the Labour whips' blacklist were all their own, which does seem to be the inference of the story, but I haven't seen explicitly stated)
    Why are you removing those known to be gay? Roberts, Pincher and the Tory MP who has been barred from Westminster for over 12 months now were all allegedly involved in same-sex incidents. It’s quite likely that any list is agnostic on proclivity.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,814

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Just a few examples of the human cost of stupid right wingers playing politics with people's lives - including, as it turned out, their own.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/media/bob-enyart-death-covid/index.html
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/covid-texas-gop-scott-apley-b1897325.html
    https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/medical-advances/584077-more-and-more-conservative-media-leaders-are/
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203
    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    Not yet he’s not. Let’s find out what he’s so desperate to hide first.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Agree. For what it’s worth in my view the first lockdown was absolutely vital, the second was advisable and the third was unnecessary. The flight of the right to anti-science is perplexing, as policy responses should be rooted basically in an open understanding of scientific evidence, even allowing for political nuance.

    There is no question that in Mar 2020 it was lockdown or public health collapse.
    The issue was not that the third one was unnecessary. It was that it could potentially have been avoided if the second one hadn't been comprehensively bungled.

    The determination to avoid locking down - for example, from my own experience, ordering schools to stay open when they couldn't actually staff their lessons, refusing to consider phased lessons and even simple things like ordering staff who should according to law have been isolating to go into work - meant, ironically, that another full lockdown became necessary.
    In other words, competence matters.

    Since the Conservative party was remade in BoJo's wobbly image, it's been good at persuading people that it wants personal freedom, national vigour, levelling up yada yada. But loudly wanting something isn't enough.

    Unfortunately, the things it has done and the way it has gone about them have left us less free, less vigorous and more dependent on City middlemen than before.

    The long lockdown at the start of 2021 was the price we paid for the unsuccessful attempt to save Christmas 2020.
    What I found especially irritating about the second half of Covid was that although it was obvious that it would continue to be a problem, no preparations had been made for how to deal to with the situation, and when it was plain what was being done was simply not working, there was a point-blank refusal to face facts and change course apparently for that reason.

    For example, it was obvious from October 2020 onwards that the level of disruption to education meant exams run as usual would be worthless, if they could be run at all. (Interestingly, this would not necessarily have been the case in 2020, but that's another story.) But right until January, not only were the government insisting they would go ahead, but refused point blank to make any contingency plans for them being cancelled. Indeed, anyone who called for plans to be made, or tried to make them, was threatened with reprisals for 'undermining the public narrative.'

    So when they were finally cancelled, we were left with no plans for replacing them, even though we could and should have been readying ourselves for that scenario from September.

    The result was that we actually had *more* exams than before, because we needed so many test papers, which was twice as expensive (no extra funding was provided for extra photocopying and staffing, but exam boards still charged pretty much full fees) and uneven in quality (because despite assurances almost no additional papers were provided and in most subjects only one actually useful set of papers existed after the botched exam reforms of the Gove era).

    This was basic, it was simple and any vaguely intelligent human being would have been on it. One of the ways the teaching unions did get it right and that is not something they managed with everything in the pandemic is they were demanding this contingency planning from a year out. The bullying and abuse they received not from ministers but from civil servants - some of whom, we now find, were under the influence of 'works meetings' in these sessions - was appalling and in my view should have been career ending. But it hasn't been.

    This is the kind of thing we need to have investigated. Although to be honest I'm not sure how useful this inquiry would be for that. It's not the government made mistakes. That's allowable. They were in a very difficult situation. And the inquiry can make recommendations for next time to improve their response. But clearly there were people who were either so stupid they should not be running a Costa drive through or so wilfully negligent they should be doing jail time. And those people are still out there doing damage.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    My first real political engagement was during John Major's final years. He was a decent man trying to lead an increasingly indecent party. The stench of political death was unavoidable, with the inevitable ending.

    The stench is far worse this time. The government is suffering from Necrotising fasciitis - it is consuming itself. It has stopped governing, stopped with actual policies. It gets the crayons out and comes up with slogans, or even announces proposed new laws which it then quietly drops. And its solution to everything isn't to act, it is to blame everyone else.

    Instead of governing, they are expending their energy eating themselves. The Covid enquiry was created grudgingly, very late, deliberately to kick the can down the road. And now the government who created it is suing its own enquiry to stop WhatsApp messages being handed over to save the reputation of the former PM who just handed them over.

    I know that we have some Tories on here, but even they must be able to smell death. How can they not? It isn't even about Labour or Keith Donkey not being Tony Blair - the Tory government is necrotic.

    What does Sunak have to hide? I'm not sure that he knows the detail. But he can smell it.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    What’s terrifying is how those on the Right have convinced themselves that the various public health measures taken — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, information campaigns, etc. — were bad. We saw how that played out in the US, where Republican-voting areas had death rates that were 40%-300% higher: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/12/05/republican-covid-death-rate/
    Agree. For what it’s worth in my view the first lockdown was absolutely vital, the second was advisable and the third was unnecessary. The flight of the right to anti-science is perplexing, as policy responses should be rooted basically in an open understanding of scientific evidence, even allowing for political nuance.

    There is no question that in Mar 2020 it was lockdown or public health collapse.
    The issue was not that the third one was unnecessary. It was that it could potentially have been avoided if the second one hadn't been comprehensively bungled.

    The determination to avoid locking down - for example, from my own experience, ordering schools to stay open when they couldn't actually staff their lessons, refusing to consider phased lessons and even simple things like ordering staff who should according to law have been isolating to go into work - meant, ironically, that another full lockdown became necessary.
    In other words, competence matters.

    Since the Conservative party was remade in BoJo's wobbly image, it's been good at persuading people that it wants personal freedom, national vigour, levelling up yada yada. But loudly wanting something isn't enough.

    Unfortunately, the things it has done and the way it has gone about them have left us less free, less vigorous and more dependent on City middlemen than before.

    The long lockdown at the start of 2021 was the price we paid for the unsuccessful attempt to save Christmas 2020.
    And the Alpha variant.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,319
    Chris said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
    I think that very much depends on what stage of the pandemic we're talking about. Early on - Feb/Mar 2020 - we were seeing *lots* of hospitalisations and deaths in other countries (e.g. Italy), and the virus spreading like wildfire on cruise ships and elsewhere. The answer is simple: we did not know the fatality rate - a fact made worse by China not sharing data on what they were seeing (*), or how it spread.

    Ministers would have been talking to experts, and those experts would have been giving WAG about things they did not really have data for. Could it have been Black Death orders of magnitude? Yes. It was unlikely, but it was possible.

    Remember, the criticisms (including on here) at the time was that the government did not lock down had enough, or soon enough.

    (*) We should really be furious with China over this. They lied and covered up, and it cost lives over here.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,474

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
    Were you the poster who predicted in January that the lead would shrink by 1% every month from then on?

    The evidence from every single poll for the last year is that the public has a settled intention to remove the Conservatives from office. The "week is a long time" is less relevant in that context. The Tories need a very large black swan. Attacking Heathener for pointing that out is an unpleasant evasion of that obvious fact.
    !

    Not that I recall but I may have!
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
    Were you the poster who predicted in January that the lead would shrink by 1% every month from then on?

    The evidence from every single poll for the last year is that the public has a settled intention to remove the Conservatives from office. The "week is a long time" is less relevant in that context. The Tories need a very large black swan. Attacking Heathener for pointing that out is an unpleasant evasion of that obvious fact.
    What I don't see, is the point in pointing it out. "Bloodbath" sounds as if it should be quantifiable in seat bands, but I think all he is saying is that there will not be a con government after the next election. Well, duh, who on earth is betting that there will be? So, maj or min Labour government? If maj, over or under 50 seats?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,865

    If Sunak is hiding something, it's going to come out quite soon.

    If something big comes out, he's in serious -- probably terminal -- trouble.

    If it's terminal, the pressure for a (not that early) General Election will become intense.

    I see that it's 10/1 that the next General Election will be in 2023. I might have expected longer odds, but given the above I wonder if, nonetheless, there's some value there, if only as a trading bet?

    Disclosure: I've never placed a bet in my life (I married a Methodist). Which may make my long years of lurking here seem all the odder, but I lurk (and occasionally post some ill-considered tripe here) nonetheless!

    You're far from alone, judging by regular anecdotes. And it's never determined what makes posts interesting.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,300
    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    I think that's right: I'd expect a Labour majority of 5 to 25, with the SNP down 15 and the LDs up a similar amount.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,208
    DougSeal said:

    Good morning

    Sunak and the government prevarication over this matter will lead to the question what is being hidden

    Personally I think it is an own goal, but Sunak is not good at politics and is more a technocrat than most PM’S

    Johnson of course must think we are all easily led when he says he is submitting his what's app etc direct to the inquiry but conveniently only from May 21 when he announced the enquiry, and his important what's app etc over the previous 15 months have just disappeared into space

    The conservative party need to go into opposition and rediscover their one nation credentials and it is not unreasonable to expect a substantial loss for them at GE24

    However,. Indeed my preferred result for GE 24 would be a minority led Labour government or a Labour government with a small majority

    Anyway back to discussing the Scholfield media drama no doubt but not for me

    “… I do not subscribe to the narrative that Starmer is the new messiah that will deliver the nation from the deep and long standing fractures following covid, the war in Ukraine, and to a degree Brexit…”

    WTF? Point me to a person, one person, who has come close, within a mile, to describing Starmer as a “new messiah”. As I pointed out to BJO the other day the level of ire Starmer creates in his opponents is wholly disproportionate to the enthusiasm he generates in his supporters. Nobody, literally nobody, thinks that he’s going to do all that. I say that as a Labour voter.

    As for your implication that the war in Ukraine has fractured the country more than Brexit, can I have some of what you’re smoking? Are you that more a handful of Trots and nutters are supporting Russia?

    Utterly scandalous slur about Ukraine and you should apologise

    Ukraine has caused terrible damage to economies around the world and brexit has had problems but they can be ameliorated and will be
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,319

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
    Were you the poster who predicted in January that the lead would shrink by 1% every month from then on?

    The evidence from every single poll for the last year is that the public has a settled intention to remove the Conservatives from office. The "week is a long time" is less relevant in that context. The Tories need a very large black swan. Attacking Heathener for pointing that out is an unpleasant evasion of that obvious fact.
    My expectation is for the next GE to give a fairly stonking Labour majority. I am probably going to vote Labour, despite my reservations about Starmer (and to be fair, I'd have reservations at various levels about any PM candidate).

    The thing is, absent a white swan event, I cannot see how the Conservatives are going to win back the public. Sunak might be a solid, workaday PM, but like Major, he has inherited a party that is at war with itself, and which has been in power too long.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,865
    edited June 2023
    Predictable that he'd be an enthusiast for such behaviour, but still.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1664806513762762752
    Trump: How about Patton? He used to slap them around. You get out there and you fight. He would have been out within two days of the military. We've gotten so bad.

    Patton was, of course, reassigned away from meaningful leadership as a result.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,474

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
    Were you the poster who predicted in January that the lead would shrink by 1% every month from then on?

    The evidence from every single poll for the last year is that the public has a settled intention to remove the Conservatives from office. The "week is a long time" is less relevant in that context. The Tories need a very large black swan. Attacking Heathener for pointing that out is an unpleasant evasion of that obvious fact.
    !

    Not that I recall but I may have!
    I am attacking him for extrapolating a poll so far from a GE as an inevitable bloodbath not only this poll but with every poll he sees qnd its correct to say it is tripe. Who knows what will happen... in any case I have previously posted that the Tories will lose and need booting out so please get off of my cloud.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,025
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....
    You are assuming that the 30 were all Labour. I very much doubt that. Still a significant number out of a House of 646 (excluding SF) though, especially if women and gays are excluded. Politics attracts weirdo’s, no doubt about it.
    Wise words on a site dedicated to politics.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998
    edited June 2023

    Chris said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
    I think that very much depends on what stage of the pandemic we're talking about. Early on - Feb/Mar 2020 - we were seeing *lots* of hospitalisations and deaths in other countries (e.g. Italy), and the virus spreading like wildfire on cruise ships and elsewhere. The answer is simple: we did not know the fatality rate - a fact made worse by China not sharing data on what they were seeing (*), or how it spread.

    Ministers would have been talking to experts, and those experts would have been giving WAG about things they did not really have data for. Could it have been Black Death orders of magnitude? Yes. It was unlikely, but it was possible.

    Remember, the criticisms (including on here) at the time was that the government did not lock down had enough, or soon enough.

    (*) We should really be furious with China over this. They lied and covered up, and it cost lives over here.
    ISTR the ballpark expert prediction was without lockdown, excess deaths would be about half a million.

    As even with lockdowns it's got to around half that, if anything it seems an underestimate. But they may have been thinking in terms of six or twelve months.
  • Options


    Disclosure: I've never placed a bet in my life (I married a Methodist). Which may make my long years of lurking here seem all the odder, but I lurk (and occasionally post some ill-considered tripe here) nonetheless!

    You married a Methodist? That was a huge gamble, wasn't it?
    🤣

    It's OK; I persuaded her to join a local (Anglican) church. She needed a bit of a circuit-breaker. Would she ever return to Methodism? Parish the thought!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,716



    Disclosure: I've never placed a bet in my life (I married a Methodist). Which may make my long years of lurking here seem all the odder, but I lurk (and occasionally post some ill-considered tripe here) nonetheless!

    You married a Methodist? That was a huge gamble, wasn't it?
    🤣

    It's OK; I persuaded her to join a local (Anglican) church. She needed a bit of a circuit-breaker. Would she ever return to Methodism? Parish the thought!
    You can take the girl out of Methodism...
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701
    edited June 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    I think that's right: I'd expect a Labour majority of 5 to 25, with the SNP down 15 and the LDs up a similar amount.
    My take is that the Tories will hang on fairly well in the Midlands and South West, and especially so in the East Midlands, they will do badly in the North and terribly in the South East where they will lose some seats that they’ve held since the War. They’ve taken the SE vote for granted in the way Labour did with theirs.

    Labour maj 50 but a stronger than expected LD performance will hit the Tories hard.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,482
    edited June 2023
    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Interesting that you add together the Labour/Lib Dem vote an anti Tory one. I instinctively agree with you and it explains why we're getting such timidity from Davey and Starmer. Why do anything when the enemy are shooting themselves.

    It's irritating for sure. Why haven't we got 48 sheet posters of Sunak in front of that 'Stop the Boats' sign posted by DA last night? It does everything you could ever wish for from a bit of knocking copy.

    I feel like the nervous soldier in Zulu being told to wait till you see the whites of their eyes.....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,865
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....

    (edit/ I am making the assumption here that the MPs on the Labour whips' blacklist were all their own, which does seem to be the inference of the story, but I haven't seen explicitly stated)
    The list wasn't confined to Labour MPs - rather all MPs.
    The reporting around this has been extremely poor in leading to that misconception. As previously noted here.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,865

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
    Were you the poster who predicted in January that the lead would shrink by 1% every month from then on?

    The evidence from every single poll for the last year is that the public has a settled intention to remove the Conservatives from office. The "week is a long time" is less relevant in that context. The Tories need a very large black swan. Attacking Heathener for pointing that out is an unpleasant evasion of that obvious fact.
    I think that was Casino (who's also taken the odd shot at Heathener).
    But it was closer to a speculative wish than hard prediction, I think.

    Fair point about dodgy extrapolation being a bipartisan habit.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    Not yet he’s not. Let’s find out what he’s so desperate to hide first.
    A fair point. The JR is truly bizarre. An astonishing use of public money on any reckoning.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203
    edited June 2023

    DougSeal said:

    Good morning

    Sunak and the government prevarication over this matter will lead to the question what is being hidden

    Personally I think it is an own goal, but Sunak is not good at politics and is more a technocrat than most PM’S

    Johnson of course must think we are all easily led when he says he is submitting his what's app etc direct to the inquiry but conveniently only from May 21 when he announced the enquiry, and his important what's app etc over the previous 15 months have just disappeared into space

    The conservative party need to go into opposition and rediscover their one nation credentials and it is not unreasonable to expect a substantial loss for them at GE24

    However,. Indeed my preferred result for GE 24 would be a minority led Labour government or a Labour government with a small majority

    Anyway back to discussing the Scholfield media drama no doubt but not for me

    “… I do not subscribe to the narrative that Starmer is the new messiah that will deliver the nation from the deep and long standing fractures following covid, the war in Ukraine, and to a degree Brexit…”

    WTF? Point me to a person, one person, who has come close, within a mile, to describing Starmer as a “new messiah”. As I pointed out to BJO the other day the level of ire Starmer creates in his opponents is wholly disproportionate to the enthusiasm he generates in his supporters. Nobody, literally nobody, thinks that he’s going to do all that. I say that as a Labour voter.

    As for your implication that the war in Ukraine has fractured the country more than Brexit, can I have some of what you’re smoking? Are you that more a handful of Trots and nutters are supporting Russia?

    Utterly scandalous slur about Ukraine and you should apologise

    Ukraine has caused terrible damage to economies around the world and brexit has had problems but they can be ameliorated and will be
    Apologise? For what? You said “fractured” the country, not “caused it economic damage”. No one doubts the latter. The former implication, that large sections of society, presumably your opponents left of centre, are supporting Russia, is what I was rightly calling out. The idea that we have a load of Russian supporters in this country that only you brave boys in the Tory party are keeping in check is an absolute scandal. You can’t say that sort of thing. Take a long hard look at yourself.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998

    Chris said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
    I think that very much depends on what stage of the pandemic we're talking about. Early on - Feb/Mar 2020 - we were seeing *lots* of hospitalisations and deaths in other countries (e.g. Italy), and the virus spreading like wildfire on cruise ships and elsewhere. The answer is simple: we did not know the fatality rate - a fact made worse by China not sharing data on what they were seeing (*), or how it spread.

    Ministers would have been talking to experts, and those experts would have been giving WAG about things they did not really have data for. Could it have been Black Death orders of magnitude? Yes. It was unlikely, but it was possible.

    Remember, the criticisms (including on here) at the time was that the government did not lock down had enough, or soon enough.

    (*) We should really be furious with China over this. They lied and covered up, and it cost lives over here.
    Following up my own post:

    Imagine being a decision maker in a large country in mid-March 2020. You know there is a virus spreading around the world. Bad scenes are coming out of other countries, and China - where it started - are being very, very secretive - as if they have something bad to hide.

    You talk to experts. One expert says it will be akin to a cough, and the only fatality will be a 95-year old man called Frank from Dewsbury. Another expert says it *may* give fatality levels at the 50% levels. Other experts give ranges of predictions between those. All are giving their best guesses, and are being truthful with no political or social biases.

    Other experts give you potential actions, from doing nothing, to immediate and harsh lockdown.

    And this is another politician's dilemma: having to make immediate decisions of vast importance on very incomplete data.

    And all of this, knowing that when better data comes in, people will say that with hindsight, you made the wrong decision.

    Again I say: I'm glad I didn't have to make the decisions.
    But that defence fails because these people - Johnson, Cummings etc - wanted the top job. They were totally unscrupulous in how they got there. And that's part of it.

    They didn't seem to understand that, but again, that merely demonstrates how unfit for purpose our government had become that such charlatans could rise to the top.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    Not yet he’s not. Let’s find out what he’s so desperate to hide first.
    A fair point. The JR is truly bizarre. An astonishing use of public money on any reckoning.
    They don't even think it is controversial - these are the dying acts of a government being eaten by itself. And how dare anyone ask any questions - who do the plebs think they are?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....

    (edit/ I am making the assumption here that the MPs on the Labour whips' blacklist were all their own, which does seem to be the inference of the story, but I haven't seen explicitly stated)
    The list wasn't confined to Labour MPs - rather all MPs.
    The reporting around this has been extremely poor in leading to that misconception. As previously noted here.
    One needs to add those gay MPs who are pretty handsy to the thirty as well, to get an idea of the number of predators in the Commons.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    Not yet he’s not. Let’s find out what he’s so desperate to hide first.
    A fair point. The JR is truly bizarre. An astonishing use of public money on any reckoning.
    They don't even think
    TBF those four words alone neatly encapsulate the issue.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    I think that's right: I'd expect a Labour majority of 5 to 25, with the SNP down 15 and the LDs up a similar amount.
    Polling-wise, the Labour lead now is pretty much where the Conservative lead was in 2009 (although Lib Dem support was greater at that stage). The Conservatives are more corrupt than Labour was at that point (although Labour was quite corrupt by that point). OTOH, the economic outlook is better than it was in 2009, so it's probably a wash. A 15% lead now, probably converts into a 7-8% lead on polling day.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,759
    edited June 2023
    ...
    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....

    (edit/ I am making the assumption here that the MPs on the Labour whips' blacklist were all their own, which does seem to be the inference of the story, but I haven't seen explicitly stated)
    The list wasn't confined to Labour MPs - rather all MPs.
    The reporting around this has been extremely poor in leading to that misconception. As previously noted here.
    The reporting, particularly by the BBC has cleverly focused it as an exclusively Labour Party scandal. The tacit implication by the BBC (from evidence by Nichols that there are 30 MPs of different stripes she was told to avoid) has been without question that all 30 belong to the Labour Party.

    That said, the Labour Party have behaved abominably over the issue, so perhaps they exclusively deserve to have the entire bucket of ordure poured over them, rather than sharing it with the Conservatives.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
    I think that very much depends on what stage of the pandemic we're talking about. Early on - Feb/Mar 2020 - we were seeing *lots* of hospitalisations and deaths in other countries (e.g. Italy), and the virus spreading like wildfire on cruise ships and elsewhere. The answer is simple: we did not know the fatality rate - a fact made worse by China not sharing data on what they were seeing (*), or how it spread.

    Ministers would have been talking to experts, and those experts would have been giving WAG about things they did not really have data for. Could it have been Black Death orders of magnitude? Yes. It was unlikely, but it was possible.

    Remember, the criticisms (including on here) at the time was that the government did not lock down had enough, or soon enough.

    (*) We should really be furious with China over this. They lied and covered up, and it cost lives over here.
    Following up my own post:

    Imagine being a decision maker in a large country in mid-March 2020. You know there is a virus spreading around the world. Bad scenes are coming out of other countries, and China - where it started - are being very, very secretive - as if they have something bad to hide.

    You talk to experts. One expert says it will be akin to a cough, and the only fatality will be a 95-year old man called Frank from Dewsbury. Another expert says it *may* give fatality levels at the 50% levels. Other experts give ranges of predictions between those. All are giving their best guesses, and are being truthful with no political or social biases.

    Other experts give you potential actions, from doing nothing, to immediate and harsh lockdown.

    And this is another politician's dilemma: having to make immediate decisions of vast importance on very incomplete data.

    And all of this, knowing that when better data comes in, people will say that with hindsight, you made the wrong decision.

    Again I say: I'm glad I didn't have to make the decisions.
    But that defence fails because these people - Johnson, Cummings etc - wanted the top job. They were totally unscrupulous in how they got there. And that's part of it.

    They didn't seem to understand that, but again, that merely demonstrates how unfit for purpose our government had become that such charlatans could rise to the top.
    If I schemed unscrupulously for the top job, I think I'd have enough self-respect to work hard at it, once I got it. And if I wasn't prepared to put in the work, I wouldn't scheme for the job.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,143
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    I think that's right: I'd expect a Labour majority of 5 to 25, with the SNP down 15 and the LDs up a similar amount.
    Polling-wise, the Labour lead now is pretty much where the Conservative lead was in 2009 (although Lib Dem support was greater at that stage). The Conservatives are more corrupt than Labour was at that point (although Labour was quite corrupt by that point). OTOH, the economic outlook is better than it was in 2009, so it's probably a wash. A 15% lead now, probably converts into a 7-8% lead on polling day.
    Perfectly reasonable, Sean, but are you taking tactical voting into account? I suspect that is going to hurt them badly this time round.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    Not yet he’s not. Let’s find out what he’s so desperate to hide first.
    A fair point. The JR is truly bizarre. An astonishing use of public money on any reckoning.
    They don't even think it is controversial - these are the dying acts of a government being eaten by itself. And how dare anyone ask any questions - who do the plebs think they are?
    I posted a couple of days ago that I can see the concern from the government perspective. Even politicians need some privacy and a place where they can let off pressure by making bad jokes, being sarcastic about others, being flippant etc and I can fully understand why they, as a class, are apprehensive about stuff never intended to be public might become so. I think of some of the comments and jokes that fly around in my profession on WhatsApp and shudder about a similar exercise*.

    But a JR? Jeez. How have relations already got so poisonous with the Inquiry that things have come to this?

    *Personally I am cautious even there but that's because I am boring. Some posts are deleted on receipt. Current developments are likely to accentuate this.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    I think that's right: I'd expect a Labour majority of 5 to 25, with the SNP down 15 and the LDs up a similar amount.
    Polling-wise, the Labour lead now is pretty much where the Conservative lead was in 2009 (although Lib Dem support was greater at that stage). The Conservatives are more corrupt than Labour was at that point (although Labour was quite corrupt by that point). OTOH, the economic outlook is better than it was in 2009, so it's probably a wash. A 15% lead now, probably converts into a 7-8% lead on polling day.
    Perfectly reasonable, Sean, but are you taking tactical voting into account? I suspect that is going to hurt them badly this time round.
    The Conservatives out-performed uniform national swing in 2010, so I'd expect the same for Labour at the next GE.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    My first real political engagement was during John Major's final years. He was a decent man trying to lead an increasingly indecent party. The stench of political death was unavoidable, with the inevitable ending.

    The stench is far worse this time. The government is suffering from Necrotising fasciitis - it is consuming itself. It has stopped governing, stopped with actual policies. It gets the crayons out and comes up with slogans, or even announces proposed new laws which it then quietly drops. And its solution to everything isn't to act, it is to blame everyone else.

    Instead of governing, they are expending their energy eating themselves. The Covid enquiry was created grudgingly, very late, deliberately to kick the can down the road. And now the government who created it is suing its own enquiry to stop WhatsApp messages being handed over to save the reputation of the former PM who just handed them over.

    I know that we have some Tories on here, but even they must be able to smell death. How can they not? It isn't even about Labour or Keith Donkey not being Tony Blair - the Tory government is necrotic.

    What does Sunak have to hide? I'm not sure that he knows the detail. But he can smell it.

    This time in 1996 there was a palpable fury emanating from Blair but felt by everyone that a competent adult was being prevented from taking the controls by Major pointlessly insisting on his right to serve out 5 years in the forlorn hope of something turning up. I don't get that sense at all now. Starmer might be a bit better or a bit worse than Sunak, but nobody - not even Starmer- thinks there's a night and day difference between them.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    No it really wasn't.

    It was that they imposed those rules and then didn't keep them themselves. They deprived people of the right to go to birthday parties or visit dying relatives, whilst all the while mocking us.

    The British public will never forgive them for this and on election day vengeance will be brutal.
    I know there is a narrative about ‘parties’ that people have. The idea that number 10 was a constant orgy of drinking etc but I really think this should be challenged. Yes there were pathetic gatherings of people trying to do the right thing, among work colleagues. But for the most part those setting the rules followed them.
    I know I am probably the only person on pb who thinks this.
    If you think the ‘Johnson birthday party’ at work, during work, is your idea of fun then I pity you.
    The rules were too strict on certain things. Never again should people have to die separated from their relatives and spouses. If a situation requires lockdown or something similar, don’t get into micromanagement. Set the rules and stick to it.

    I’d also castigate the media in this. Every single press conference seemed to be a chance for a gotcha moment. PB was far better informed and would have asked far better questions.

    I think the government will suffer from stuff that comes out of the Inquiry, probably unfairly, in the most part. People are very poor at remembering what those days were like. How little we really knew. All they want is to lay the blame somewhere.
    I often feel that some think no-one should have died of covid if the government had made the right calls. This is nonsense, and ignores the experiences of other western governments who ended up with broadly similar outcomes.
    Policing of restrictions was too zealous, as the Govt was advised of at the time. We needed more carrot and less stick. That is, more help for those self-isolating.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    I think that's right: I'd expect a Labour majority of 5 to 25, with the SNP down 15 and the LDs up a similar amount.
    Polling-wise, the Labour lead now is pretty much where the Conservative lead was in 2009 (although Lib Dem support was greater at that stage). The Conservatives are more corrupt than Labour was at that point (although Labour was quite corrupt by that point). OTOH, the economic outlook is better than it was in 2009, so it's probably a wash. A 15% lead now, probably converts into a 7-8% lead on polling day.
    Perfectly reasonable, Sean, but are you taking tactical voting into account? I suspect that is going to hurt them badly this time round.
    There is a very clear Anyone But Conservative tactical voting machine in effect. Its possible the Tories may be able to find a truce with the NatC wing, but they didn't in 2019. Seats like Stockton North stayed Labour only because the hard right split the vote.

    If both of these trends continue then we are into bloodbath territory. Not a Labour landslide because ABC doesn't always mean voting Labour. Not a Labour landslide because the Tories will likely keep hold of some recently won territory especially in the midlands.

    The simple truth though is that LibDem, Green, SNP MPs will not be the opposition. They will not blindly vote against a Labour government. You could get a Labour majority of 50 but a working majority of 100. Where by working with the rest of the ABC block they drive through some long term changes that screw the Tories in opposition even harder.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,444

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    No it really wasn't.

    It was that they imposed those rules and then didn't keep them themselves. They deprived people of the right to go to birthday parties or visit dying relatives, whilst all the while mocking us.

    The British public will never forgive them for this and on election day vengeance will be brutal.
    I know there is a narrative about ‘parties’ that people have. The idea that number 10 was a constant orgy of drinking etc but I really think this should be challenged. Yes there were pathetic gatherings of people trying to do the right thing, among work colleagues. But for the most part those setting the rules followed them.
    I know I am probably the only person on pb who thinks this.
    If you think the ‘Johnson birthday party’ at work, during work, is your idea of fun then I pity you.
    The rules were too strict on certain things. Never again should people have to die separated from their relatives and spouses. If a situation requires lockdown or something similar, don’t get into micromanagement. Set the rules and stick to it.

    I’d also castigate the media in this. Every single press conference seemed to be a chance for a gotcha moment. PB was far better informed and would have asked far better questions.

    I think the government will suffer from stuff that comes out of the Inquiry, probably unfairly, in the most part. People are very poor at remembering what those days were like. How little we really knew. All they want is to lay the blame somewhere.
    I often feel that some think no-one should have died of covid if the government had made the right calls. This is nonsense, and ignores the experiences of other western governments who ended up with broadly similar outcomes.
    Policing of restrictions was too zealous, as the Govt was advised of at the time. We needed more carrot and less stick. That is, more help for those self-isolating.
    Agreed. I also think some of the more stupid tinkering were pointless. Wearing a mask when moving round a pub but not when sitting down ffs. And we knew by them that it wasn’t primarily droplets to worry about but aerosols.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,998

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    No it really wasn't.

    It was that they imposed those rules and then didn't keep them themselves. They deprived people of the right to go to birthday parties or visit dying relatives, whilst all the while mocking us.

    The British public will never forgive them for this and on election day vengeance will be brutal.
    I know there is a narrative about ‘parties’ that people have. The idea that number 10 was a constant orgy of drinking etc but I really think this should be challenged. Yes there were pathetic gatherings of people trying to do the right thing, among work colleagues. But for the most part those setting the rules followed them.
    I know I am probably the only person on pb who thinks this.
    If you think the ‘Johnson birthday party’ at work, during work, is your idea of fun then I pity you.
    The rules were too strict on certain things. Never again should people have to die separated from their relatives and spouses. If a situation requires lockdown or something similar, don’t get into micromanagement. Set the rules and stick to it.

    I’d also castigate the media in this. Every single press conference seemed to be a chance for a gotcha moment. PB was far better informed and would have asked far better questions.

    I think the government will suffer from stuff that comes out of the Inquiry, probably unfairly, in the most part. People are very poor at remembering what those days were like. How little we really knew. All they want is to lay the blame somewhere.
    I often feel that some think no-one should have died of covid if the government had made the right calls. This is nonsense, and ignores the experiences of other western governments who ended up with broadly similar outcomes.
    I think the point is that what they did was illegal according to their own rules. Therefore, they were in their own eyes not 'doing the right thing.'

    Those of us who were, ignoring the lies of that idiot Fabricant, actually working on the front line were not having any parties at all, never mind boozy ones.

    If their own rules were stupid (which they were) then that only really makes things worse.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,482
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....
    Labour MPs or all MPs?

    Edit - also, those six elected in 2019 still be included in your final figure as you said 'being left alone' without qualifying it.
    Ive just taken a look at the gorgeous pouting Charlotte Nichols and it's very probably something she dreamt

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7724983/Labour-election-candidate-probed-police-shes-accused-giving-false-address.html
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    Miklosvar said:

    Starmer might be a bit better or a bit worse than Sunak, but nobody - not even Starmer- thinks there's a night and day difference between them.

    The day Starmer enters No 10, Cruella will no longer be Home Secretary.

    That's yooooooooge
  • Options
    Miklosvar said:

    My first real political engagement was during John Major's final years. He was a decent man trying to lead an increasingly indecent party. The stench of political death was unavoidable, with the inevitable ending.

    The stench is far worse this time. The government is suffering from Necrotising fasciitis - it is consuming itself. It has stopped governing, stopped with actual policies. It gets the crayons out and comes up with slogans, or even announces proposed new laws which it then quietly drops. And its solution to everything isn't to act, it is to blame everyone else.

    Instead of governing, they are expending their energy eating themselves. The Covid enquiry was created grudgingly, very late, deliberately to kick the can down the road. And now the government who created it is suing its own enquiry to stop WhatsApp messages being handed over to save the reputation of the former PM who just handed them over.

    I know that we have some Tories on here, but even they must be able to smell death. How can they not? It isn't even about Labour or Keith Donkey not being Tony Blair - the Tory government is necrotic.

    What does Sunak have to hide? I'm not sure that he knows the detail. But he can smell it.

    This time in 1996 there was a palpable fury emanating from Blair but felt by everyone that a competent adult was being prevented from taking the controls by Major pointlessly insisting on his right to serve out 5 years in the forlorn hope of something turning up. I don't get that sense at all now. Starmer might be a bit better or a bit worse than Sunak, but nobody - not even Starmer- thinks there's a night and day difference between them.
    That's EXACTLY the public feeling I sense. I suspect you're in for a nasty surprise (and perhaps Starmer in for a pleasant one).
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    2017 was also an unusual election, dominated by Brexit, and ultimately settled by the lack of trust the electorate had in Theresa May, and their consequent unwillingness to give her a free hand.

    Starmer hasn't sealed the deal with the electorate (yet). Unless he does there's always the chance that the electorate will shy away from giving him a majority.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    FWIW I am expecting an election more like 2010 in reverse, possibly a little better for Labour because of developments in Scotland. This government is tired and worn down but I don’t accept that the current incumbent is disgraced, unlike his 2 immediate predecessors. It is time for a change though and Labour are actually offering a credible alternative this time. That’s going to be enough.

    Not yet he’s not. Let’s find out what he’s so desperate to hide first.
    A fair point. The JR is truly bizarre. An astonishing use of public money on any reckoning.
    They don't even think it is controversial - these are the dying acts of a government being eaten by itself. And how dare anyone ask any questions - who do the plebs think they are?
    I posted a couple of days ago that I can see the concern from the government perspective. Even politicians need some privacy and a place where they can let off pressure by making bad jokes, being sarcastic about others, being flippant etc and I can fully understand why they, as a class, are apprehensive about stuff never intended to be public might become so. I think of some of the comments and jokes that fly around in my profession on WhatsApp and shudder about a similar exercise*.

    But a JR? Jeez. How have relations already got so poisonous with the Inquiry that things have come to this?

    *Personally I am cautious even there but that's because I am boring. Some posts are deleted on receipt. Current developments are likely to accentuate this.
    Yes. A judicial review. To delay an important action set into motion by the government. Yet when you look at their 2019 manifesto they said this:

    ". We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless
    delays"

    Oh dear oh dear. When they said "individuals" apparently they meant "ministers" even though the primary target has already agreed to comply. And "conducting politics by another means" - Sunak vs Johnson, Johnson vs Sunak.

    As I said in an earlier post, they are necrotic.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,143
    edited June 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I see that Omnisis have the Labour lead back up at 21%.

    The most consistent feature of all the polls is the tories in the mid to high 20's % and the Lab-LibDems in the mid 50's%.

    Election night is going to be a bloodbath.

    Right , now you have posted this tripe et again, you've done your job (as you see it) for the day. Now try posting something sensible for once
    Lol.

    I posted the latest opinion poll showing a 21% Labour lead. It's fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The mean for the last 10 national polls is:

    Conservatives 28.3 %

    Labour-LibDems 54.6%

    I put Labour-LibDems together because there's evidentially (04-05-23) a double pincer movement in operation amongst the electorate against the Conservatives.

    As Mike recently posted: The Labour Lead is Very Steady Across a Range of Pollsters (https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/31/the-lab-lead-is-very-steady-across-the-range-of-pollsters/)

    I know you may not 'like' these findings but going Ad Hominem is weak, and dismissing them out of hand as 'tripe' reflects poorly on your political judgement.
    A week is a long time in politics. Your extrapolation is tripe.
    Were you the poster who predicted in January that the lead would shrink by 1% every month from then on?

    The evidence from every single poll for the last year is that the public has a settled intention to remove the Conservatives from office. The "week is a long time" is less relevant in that context. The Tories need a very large black swan. Attacking Heathener for pointing that out is an unpleasant evasion of that obvious fact.
    What I don't see, is the point in pointing it out. "Bloodbath" sounds as if it should be quantifiable in seat bands, but I think all he is saying is that there will not be a con government after the next election. Well, duh, who on earth is betting that there will be? So, maj or min Labour government? If maj, over or under 50 seats?
    FPTP makes it very difficult to put numbers on it, especially if tactical voting is likely to play a big part.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    No it really wasn't.

    It was that they imposed those rules and then didn't keep them themselves. They deprived people of the right to go to birthday parties or visit dying relatives, whilst all the while mocking us.

    The British public will never forgive them for this and on election day vengeance will be brutal.
    I know there is a narrative about ‘parties’ that people have. The idea that number 10 was a constant orgy of drinking etc but I really think this should be challenged. Yes there were pathetic gatherings of people trying to do the right thing, among work colleagues. But for the most part those setting the rules followed them.
    I know I am probably the only person on pb who thinks this.
    If you think the ‘Johnson birthday party’ at work, during work, is your idea of fun then I pity you.
    The rules were too strict on certain things. Never again should people have to die separated from their relatives and spouses. If a situation requires lockdown or something similar, don’t get into micromanagement. Set the rules and stick to it.

    I’d also castigate the media in this. Every single press conference seemed to be a chance for a gotcha moment. PB was far better informed and would have asked far better questions.

    I think the government will suffer from stuff that comes out of the Inquiry, probably unfairly, in the most part. People are very poor at remembering what those days were like. How little we really knew. All they want is to lay the blame somewhere.
    I often feel that some think no-one should have died of covid if the government had made the right calls. This is nonsense, and ignores the experiences of other western governments who ended up with broadly similar outcomes.
    Policing of restrictions was too zealous, as the Govt was advised of at the time. We needed more carrot and less stick. That is, more help for those self-isolating.
    The government claim that they can't hand over WhatsApp messages which are irrelevant. Yet amongst the first of the run ins with Hallett was about WhatsApp messages related to the Sarah Everard vigil policing.

    The government claimed arresting women at a vigil using Covid regulations was not relevant to an enquiry about Covid. So we know that their judgement is demonstrably wrong.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    DavidL said:

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    No it really wasn't.

    It was that they imposed those rules and then didn't keep them themselves. They deprived people of the right to go to birthday parties or visit dying relatives, whilst all the while mocking us.

    The British public will never forgive them for this and on election day vengeance will be brutal.
    I know there is a narrative about ‘parties’ that people have. The idea that number 10 was a constant orgy of drinking etc but I really think this should be challenged. Yes there were pathetic gatherings of people trying to do the right thing, among work colleagues. But for the most part those setting the rules followed them.
    I know I am probably the only person on pb who thinks this.
    If you think the ‘Johnson birthday party’ at work, during work, is your idea of fun then I pity you.
    The rules were too strict on certain things. Never again should people have to die separated from their relatives and spouses. If a situation requires lockdown or something similar, don’t get into micromanagement. Set the rules and stick to it.

    I’d also castigate the media in this. Every single press conference seemed to be a chance for a gotcha moment. PB was far better informed and would have asked far better questions.

    I think the government will suffer from stuff that comes out of the Inquiry, probably unfairly, in the most part. People are very poor at remembering what those days were like. How little we really knew. All they want is to lay the blame somewhere.
    I often feel that some think no-one should have died of covid if the government had made the right calls. This is nonsense, and ignores the experiences of other western governments who ended up with broadly similar outcomes.
    Policing of restrictions was too zealous, as the Govt was advised of at the time. We needed more carrot and less stick. That is, more help for those self-isolating.
    Personal experience was that we weren't nearly as zealous as the government seemed to want which is why I find those who need to get out the smelling salts every time we find out that the government didn't always take them incredibly seriously either, odd.

    But that is ok and was predicted. No doubt the government had modelling which indicated the degree of compliance that could reasonably be expected and overshot the regulations to some degree to reflect that.

    What this inquiry should be focusing on, rather than government tittle tattle, is how decisions were made, and how, in some cases the expert advice was so wrong (I am not suggesting for a moment that it was anything other than genuine). In other words, did the expert structure have built into it an excessive degree of caution, a tendency to ignore the non medical consequences of their decisions and a degree of group think that was unhealthy? How could we do it better the next time?
    I was most certainly not entirely compliant with the lockdown rules, and I would not expect others to have been. We'd have all gone up the wall had we been so compliant.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,319
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
    I think that very much depends on what stage of the pandemic we're talking about. Early on - Feb/Mar 2020 - we were seeing *lots* of hospitalisations and deaths in other countries (e.g. Italy), and the virus spreading like wildfire on cruise ships and elsewhere. The answer is simple: we did not know the fatality rate - a fact made worse by China not sharing data on what they were seeing (*), or how it spread.

    Ministers would have been talking to experts, and those experts would have been giving WAG about things they did not really have data for. Could it have been Black Death orders of magnitude? Yes. It was unlikely, but it was possible.

    Remember, the criticisms (including on here) at the time was that the government did not lock down had enough, or soon enough.

    (*) We should really be furious with China over this. They lied and covered up, and it cost lives over here.
    Following up my own post:

    Imagine being a decision maker in a large country in mid-March 2020. You know there is a virus spreading around the world. Bad scenes are coming out of other countries, and China - where it started - are being very, very secretive - as if they have something bad to hide.

    You talk to experts. One expert says it will be akin to a cough, and the only fatality will be a 95-year old man called Frank from Dewsbury. Another expert says it *may* give fatality levels at the 50% levels. Other experts give ranges of predictions between those. All are giving their best guesses, and are being truthful with no political or social biases.

    Other experts give you potential actions, from doing nothing, to immediate and harsh lockdown.

    And this is another politician's dilemma: having to make immediate decisions of vast importance on very incomplete data.

    And all of this, knowing that when better data comes in, people will say that with hindsight, you made the wrong decision.

    Again I say: I'm glad I didn't have to make the decisions.
    But that defence fails because these people - Johnson, Cummings etc - wanted the top job. They were totally unscrupulous in how they got there. And that's part of it.

    They didn't seem to understand that, but again, that merely demonstrates how unfit for purpose our government had become that such charlatans could rise to the top.
    I don't think it does fail. In his near ten years in power, Blair did not have a single decision of the same gravity to make. The Iraq decision was an order of magnitude less important than Covid, and could be made over time with better data. F&M was an immediate decision, but again its effects were far less than Covid. Thatcher had the Falklands; and whilst that was an immediate decision, again it was orders of magnitude less important.

    Things like Covid come around very, very rarely. The vast majority of leaders will never be faced with something of such import.

    Your argument about charlatans can also fit Starmer. After all, he rejoined the cabinet and supported when Corbyn, an anti-Semite, was his leader. He was totally unscrupulous in how he got the job. A decent man would have stayed resigned. ;)
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    What does the PM have to hide.

    Probably nothing but for those into tittle tattle Natalie Rowe on Twitter sometimes makes the odd comment in between bashing Piers Morgan and others.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159
    DavidL said:

    What this inquiry should be focusing on, rather than government tittle tattle, is how decisions were made, and how, in some cases the expert advice was so wrong (I am not suggesting for a moment that it was anything other than genuine). In other words, did the expert structure have built into it an excessive degree of caution, a tendency to ignore the non medical consequences of their decisions and a degree of group think that was unhealthy? How could we do it better the next time?

    You misunderstand the nature of the expert advice given. SAGE was set up such that Govt would pose it questions and SAGE would give an answer. Policymaking remained with Govt and it was explicitly Govt’s job to balance the different issues at play, like medical and non-medical consequences.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,759
    ...
    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    More interpretatively, I am concerned that punters on here may be affected by recency bias and, more seriously, using the mistaken benchmark of the December 2019 election.

    There are plenty of good, non-offal, reasons for proposing that Dec 19 was a one-off. It came on the back of a stalemate parliament and Boris galvanised the 'Get Brexit Done' vote which was the raison d'etre of the election. He was up against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-semite. It had one purpose: to deliver a majority so that Brexit could be enabled.

    Since then, a series of catastrophic occurrences (many self-induced) have Ratnered the Conservative brand. And bubbling away in the background is the clusterfuck of Brexit - the very thing which motivated the Dec 19 vote.

    No, the truer benchmark is the last proper General Election which was 08 June 2017 - which resulted in a hung parliament.

    I know this part, unlike the previous, is more polemical and less factual but I think there's a good case for it. And I warn punters on here to pay attention, lest you lose your money.

    It's a sobering thought that the Tories have won a majority only twice in the last 30 years - once when offering a referendum on Brexit, and once when offering Brexit itself.
    Talking of sobering thoughts:

    Labour MP Charlotte Nichols says that when she was elected in 2019, the Labour whips gave her a list of thirty male MPs that she should avoid being alone with, at risk of her personal safety.

    In 2019, Labour saw 202 MPs elected.

    Remove the female MPs, and you are left with 98.

    Remove the men who have declared themselves as gay, and you are left with 83.

    Remove those who were newly elected in 2019 and therefore unlikely to be on the whips' black list, and you are left with just 77 (by my reckoning).

    Which suggests that a woman who finds herself alone with a heterosexual Labour MP stands an almost 40% chance of being in the company of a potentially dangerous sexual predator.....
    Labour MPs or all MPs?

    Edit - also, those six elected in 2019 still be included in your final figure as you said 'being left alone' without qualifying it.
    Ive just taken a look at the gorgeous pouting Charlotte Nichols and it's very probably something she dreamt

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7724983/Labour-election-candidate-probed-police-shes-accused-giving-false-address.html
    That is an incredibly unfair extrapolation.

    I suspect the allegations she has made and which have been more or less corroborated by Duffield and Creasey are accurate. It is the reporting that has couched this as an exclusively Labour scandal after the Davies revelations. Evan Davis interviewing Creasey yesterday tried to allude to the 30 MPs being Labour and referenced the front bencher who BigG wants sacked and remains currently un-sacked.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    I think that's a bit unfair on the Tories. They didn't know the exact impact of Covid, and quite possibly we were facing Black Death orders of magnitude. I'd expect any government to err on the safe side for a while. In fact, I think we still don't know enough about long Covid to be quite as relaxed as to declare it all over, and I wouldn't stop vaccinating.
    It's ridiculous to say we were possibly facing something like the Black Death, which had a fatality rate of one third or more.

    We knew from what happened in other countries that the infection fatality rate would be on the order of 1% - with a functioning NHS. The point that people are too stupid to grasp is that if we had followed through the crazy idea of letting the whole population get infected over the course of a couple of months, there wouldn't have been a functioning NHS for people with COVID or any other condition.
    I think that very much depends on what stage of the pandemic we're talking about. Early on - Feb/Mar 2020 - we were seeing *lots* of hospitalisations and deaths in other countries (e.g. Italy), and the virus spreading like wildfire on cruise ships and elsewhere. The answer is simple: we did not know the fatality rate - a fact made worse by China not sharing data on what they were seeing (*), or how it spread.

    Ministers would have been talking to experts, and those experts would have been giving WAG about things they did not really have data for. Could it have been Black Death orders of magnitude? Yes. It was unlikely, but it was possible.

    Remember, the criticisms (including on here) at the time was that the government did not lock down had enough, or soon enough.

    (*) We should really be furious with China over this. They lied and covered up, and it cost lives over here.
    ISTR the ballpark expert prediction was without lockdown, excess deaths would be about half a million.

    As even with lockdowns it's got to around half that, if anything it seems an underestimate. But they may have been thinking in terms of six or twelve months.
    The difference between government imposed lockdown and not is not so big because people would always self-lockdown anyway, to a certain extent.

    One of the reasons for supporting the government giving advice (or possibly even creating laws) to reduce social contact, to reduce the infection rate, is that it creates trust in the government's intentions so that the public will trust the government when HMG later say it is safe for people to go about their business as normal. Arguably that's more important than the lockdown itself.

    If HMG failed to create that trust then many people would self-lockdown (somewhat reducing the extent of infection and death) and those people wouldn't have a signal they could rely on that the danger had passed.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,692
    edited June 2023

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    And we had a perfectly good alternative on the table. Nothing scary about Covid, ignore all those people dying, Boris gets injected with Covid live on TV to show there is nothing to fear.
    Not an alternative. He did do that, or at least insist on shaking hands with almost everyone in a covid-infected hospital. And then what happened?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,319

    My first real political engagement was during John Major's final years. He was a decent man trying to lead an increasingly indecent party. The stench of political death was unavoidable, with the inevitable ending.

    (Snip)

    This amuses me, and seems common amongst the centre-left, who now say Major was a decent man, let down by his party. But I bet they were not saying that in 1997. ;)

    Major's reputation after being PM has largely improved. Blair's has decreased. Thatcher's reputation has probably remained neutral: she was too divisive, although I think some of the heat of the dislike has decreased recently. Although hatred of her still remains mythic in some quarters, even amongst those who could never vote for her.

    (I recently heard a podcast where a thirty-something Aussie was spewing Thatcher-hate, and insinuating it was a shame the Brighton bombing failed.)

    I can't really say if Brown's reputation has improved or declined; he seems to be mostly forgotten. Cameron shines like a star against his immediate predecessor and successors, but has the Brexit decision against his name (then again, I think a referendum was inevitable).
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,404
    The header says: What happened during those months three years ago will likely be remembered by people for years
    Frankly I struggle to recall almost anything that did or did not happen during Covid, apart from ordering food and groceries online
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536

    DavidL said:

    What this inquiry should be focusing on, rather than government tittle tattle, is how decisions were made, and how, in some cases the expert advice was so wrong (I am not suggesting for a moment that it was anything other than genuine). In other words, did the expert structure have built into it an excessive degree of caution, a tendency to ignore the non medical consequences of their decisions and a degree of group think that was unhealthy? How could we do it better the next time?

    You misunderstand the nature of the expert advice given. SAGE was set up such that Govt would pose it questions and SAGE would give an answer. Policymaking remained with Govt and it was explicitly Govt’s job to balance the different issues at play, like medical and non-medical consequences.
    No, I know how it worked. But what happened in practice is that SAGE gave excessively pessimistic answers, projecting death and infection rates we never got close to and politicians were largely terrified not to implement their advice in full for fear of being attacked as irresponsible. Sunak seems, on current evidence, a notable exception to that but the structure did not produce optimal results, far from it. How do we do better?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,759
    ...
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    No it really wasn't.

    It was that they imposed those rules and then didn't keep them themselves. They deprived people of the right to go to birthday parties or visit dying relatives, whilst all the while mocking us.

    The British public will never forgive them for this and on election day vengeance will be brutal.
    I know there is a narrative about ‘parties’ that people have. The idea that number 10 was a constant orgy of drinking etc but I really think this should be challenged. Yes there were pathetic gatherings of people trying to do the right thing, among work colleagues. But for the most part those setting the rules followed them.
    I know I am probably the only person on pb who thinks this.
    If you think the ‘Johnson birthday party’ at work, during work, is your idea of fun then I pity you.
    The rules were too strict on certain things. Never again should people have to die separated from their relatives and spouses. If a situation requires lockdown or something similar, don’t get into micromanagement. Set the rules and stick to it.

    I’d also castigate the media in this. Every single press conference seemed to be a chance for a gotcha moment. PB was far better informed and would have asked far better questions.

    I think the government will suffer from stuff that comes out of the Inquiry, probably unfairly, in the most part. People are very poor at remembering what those days were like. How little we really knew. All they want is to lay the blame somewhere.
    I often feel that some think no-one should have died of covid if the government had made the right calls. This is nonsense, and ignores the experiences of other western governments who ended up with broadly similar outcomes.
    I think the point is that what they did was illegal according to their own rules. Therefore, they were in their own eyes not 'doing the right thing.'

    Those of us who were, ignoring the lies of that idiot Fabricant, actually working on the front line were not having any parties at all, never mind boozy ones.

    If their own rules were stupid (which they were) then that only really makes things worse.
    I don't think that is entirely fair.

    Under the uncertainty of the moment the lock downs were a perfectly reasonable response. Partying like it was 1999, whilst we were locked down wasn't.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,319
    Carnyx said:

    Fishing said:

    The most shameful thing about the government's behaviour during the pandemic wasn't whatever rules they broke personally, but that they agreed to stupid, tyrannical and counter-productive lockdowns at all, and then deliberately tried to terrify the public to keep them in place.

    And we had a perfectly good alternative on the table. Nothing scary about Covid, ignore all those people dying, Boris gets injected with Covid live on TV to show there is nothing to fear.
    Not an alternative. He did do that, or at least insist on shaking hands with almost everyone in a covid-infected hospital. And then what happened?
    That's true; but again, look at when it happened: 3rd March 2020, and the Sage advice came out the same day..

    " His spokesman said Johnson “wouldn’t have seen” the advice before the press conference at which he boasted about continuing to shake hands.

    The spokesman insisted the prime minister had taken other precautions, including regular handwashing, and that he changed his behaviour when the official advice changed."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/05/boris-johnson-boasted-of-shaking-hands-on-day-sage-warned-not-to

    Incidentally, about a week after that, my parents were driving back with their caravan when another driver took off their wing mirror. They stopped to exchange details, and the other driver came up and shook my dad's hand. My mum was horrified, but it was an instinctive gesture on both their parts.
This discussion has been closed.