The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I suspect Max you are a couple of decades behind me, so were a much lower risk group than someone like myself who was then in my mid/late fifties, and at a reasonably high risk of succumbing to COVID had I caught the virus.
If it meant I survived the pandemic bring on bankrupting the country.
Of course, some of the braver members of our community who, now the panic is over are blase about lockdowns, barricaded themselves in a hermetically sealed basement in Penarth for the duration.
Another pandemic is almost a certainty so we need a much better answer than that next time.
Bankrupting the country would also cost a huge number of lives and livelihoods.
We're still struggling with the fallout from the last one.
Well apparently those politicians who got all the big call right jettisoned the pandemic reaction plan in 2016. I suspect we are probably in a position to react more positively if there is a next time.
Although some of the key features which could mitigate economic inactivity through lost days from more mundane contagious diseases, like the common cold and post vaccination COVID strains, could have been encouraged by Government such as stringent personal hygiene, the use of masks and hand gels available in every public use building. That sort of behaviour isn't even encouraged in hospital. And to be clear, if you're not wearing your mask, neither am I.
The “good innings” and “lack of leadership” extract from Vallance’s diary shown to the Covid inquiry (see 3.05pm) also quotes Vallance quoting Dominic Cummings (DC), the PM’s chief adviser at the time, saying, “Rishi [Sunak] thinks just let people die and that’s okay.”
This was 25 October 2020. Sunak was chancellor at the time.
Vallance is deeply implicated in the conspiracy - for that is what it was - to silence debate around the possibility of “lab leak”. To make it socially impermissible to discuss. They did this to protect the poor virologists, and the future of science, and relations with China
He deserves zero respect
Rather like Cummings, whilst one may have limited respect for Vallance, that doesn't mean he hasn't got interesting things to say, or relevant notes from the time.
Incidentally, I had some rather tedious filing to do so listened to most of the 2-3 hour interview with Cummings someone posted yesterday. Fascinating - his analysis of the problems of Whitehall is spot on, but his only solution being to burn the system to the ground and run everything via super-bright young things recruited from startups seems rather less practical.
The one thing I've learned from many years of business is that revolutions are usually an absolute disaster. (I am often temped to short any company that trumpets anything as transformative.)
You get from A to B by a process of rapid, small iterations*.
And if something doesn't work, you reverse it.
Human beings are very bad at being able to foresee the results of actions. So the more you bundle into any particular change, the more likely it is to go wrong.
Not only that, but by making changes small, you minimize the likelihood and severity of organizational opposition. And you also make it much more likely that changes stick.
This is true of climate change mitigation (and which is why Extinction Rebellion and the like are self defeating) and change inside organizations like the civil service.
I'd be interested in the overlap between people who rated Boris Johnson and people with a Maths A level at B or above. Quite small I'd imagine.
*Raises hand*
But it depends what you mean by “rated”. He got the referendum won. He avoided a second referendum that would have been lost. He ensured a hard-ish Brexit. He turns out to have kept our lockdown as short as was ever going to be possible, albeit more by luck than judgement.
He was very useful.
And he's trashed the Tory brand for a generation meaning I'm happy too. A little something for everyone.
Edit: Well done on that Maths.
Ooo I’ll have some of your benefit too. Labour hasn’t quite got there, but my dream scenario was to Brexit and then vote for “Blue Labour” governments.
Mind too. I thought Boris’s govt was a bit like that, or maybe I just hoped it would be. Covid got in the way, so we will never know
If only Sir Keir wasn’t the arch second referendum chaser, as well as being an unlikeable liar, I’d love to vote for them again. Would feel like coming home. I had to ask my parents if they’d hate me if I voted Conservative in 2019.
Bring back Ed Miliband and Maurice Glasman!
Your 2nd ref point is strong and authentic. A committed leaver such as yourself is entitled to hold that grudge against SKS until their dying day.
But the point about lying, no, you don't really feel that. You can't feel that because as a Boris Johnson supporter you by definition have a high tolerance for mendacity in politics.
Seems strange, but the difference is that it was factored in with Boris - we knew he had form for lying, and that was the rough to his kind of devil may care smooth; he was a bounder and we knew it.
With Sir Keir, he has built a reputation as honest, loyal, quite pious in tone… but is as bigger liar in his political life as Boris. Aside from the leadership pledge lies & the Brexit snideyness, the ‘men can have a cervix’/oh no they can’t, the vegetarianism when he eats animals, the knighthood when he said he was a Republican; it’s all so… I can’t thinking the word… annoying! Just 100% the kind of person I don’t like in life
You talk of Boris as if you loved him and so could forgive all his foibles. That's what 'factored in' really means.
At the same time the slightest "transgression" from Starmer is used as a stick with which to beat him. There's almost a dossier of this seeming hypocrisy yet we are to believe Boris has never been a liar, hypocite or undermined the position of a previous Party leader.
I dont' think politicians should need to be a maths wizz to be on the front benches, they don't need to have demonstrable experience in that field, but I do think they need to have a good level of comprehension of economic and financial matters, and so develop those skills if they want to hold serious posts. You might not get a post in the Treasury but collectively ministers need to be at least a little financially savvy.
It's why I could not be an MP, as I simply find economic matters very hard to grasp even when explained to me, and despite all the other roles an MP has I think they should, with a bit of effort, understand that sort of thing.
Of course, they often make believe they don't understand things like the deficit or debt, so it is hard to judge.
A shoutout for the Politics, Philosophy and ECONOMICS degree then?
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Because "The Wisdom of Crowds" is sometimes misunderstood, I thought I should provide this very brief review of when it works: "1. It is possible to describe how people in a group think as a whole. 2. In some cases, groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them. 3.The three conditions for a group to be intelligent are diversity, independence, and decentralization.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
There is more, but the most important condition is probably independence. The title of the original book is somewhat misleading, since real crowds (or even, these days, internet crowds) almost always weaken, or even destroy, independence.
I was a little surprised by some earlier comments, since I thought the requirement for independence was understood by most educated people.
(Military experts may want to correct me on this, but I believe some militaries, before making a command decision, poll their officers -- beginning with the most junior, and working up to the most senior. This is another way of achieving some degree of independence.)
I dont' think politicians should need to be a maths wizz to be on the front benches, they don't need to have demonstrable experience in that field, but I do think they need to have a good level of comprehension of economic and financial matters, and so develop those skills if they want to hold serious posts. You might not get a post in the Treasury but collectively ministers need to be at least a little financially savvy.
It's why I could not be an MP, as I simply find economic matters very hard to grasp even when explained to me, and despite all the other roles an MP has I think they should, with a bit of effort, understand that sort of thing.
Of course, they often make believe they don't understand things like the deficit or debt, so it is hard to judge.
A shoutout for the Politics, Philosophy and ECONOMICS degree then?
The “good innings” and “lack of leadership” extract from Vallance’s diary shown to the Covid inquiry (see 3.05pm) also quotes Vallance quoting Dominic Cummings (DC), the PM’s chief adviser at the time, saying, “Rishi [Sunak] thinks just let people die and that’s okay.”
This was 25 October 2020. Sunak was chancellor at the time.
Vallance is deeply implicated in the conspiracy - for that is what it was - to silence debate around the possibility of “lab leak”. To make it socially impermissible to discuss. They did this to protect the poor virologists, and the future of science, and relations with China
He deserves zero respect
Rather like Cummings, whilst one may have limited respect for Vallance, that doesn't mean he hasn't got interesting things to say, or relevant notes from the time.
Incidentally, I had some rather tedious filing to do so listened to most of the 2-3 hour interview with Cummings someone posted yesterday. Fascinating - his analysis of the problems of Whitehall is spot on, but his only solution being to burn the system to the ground and run everything via super-bright young things recruited from startups seems rather less practical.
The one thing I've learned from many years of business is that revolutions are usually an absolute disaster. (I am often temped to short any company that trumpets anything as transformative.)
You get from A to B by a process of rapid, small iterations*.
And if something doesn't work, you reverse it.
Human beings are very bad at being able to foresee the results of actions. So the more you bundle into any particular change, the more likely it is to go wrong.
Not only that, but by making changes small, you minimize the likelihood and severity of organizational opposition. And you also make it much more likely that changes stick.
This is true of climate change mitigation (and which is why Extinction Rebellion and the like are self defeating) and change inside organizations like the civil service.
* I hate to say it, but this is what SpaceX does.
Yup - nearly all Big Bang projects fail.
Well, Argentina is going for it.
I could also... restructure... Argentina radically. A few nanoseconds is all it would take. It would certainly sweep away the old order.
Not sure how many Argentines would survive the process, but hey....
I dont' think politicians should need to be a maths wizz to be on the front benches, they don't need to have demonstrable experience in that field, but I do think they need to have a good level of comprehension of economic and financial matters, and so develop those skills if they want to hold serious posts. You might not get a post in the Treasury but collectively ministers need to be at least a little financially savvy.
It's why I could not be an MP, as I simply find economic matters very hard to grasp even when explained to me, and despite all the other roles an MP has I think they should, with a bit of effort, understand that sort of thing.
Of course, they often make believe they don't understand things like the deficit or debt, so it is hard to judge.
A shoutout for the Politics, Philosophy and ECONOMICS degree then?
They should have had a penalty earlier for Maguire's magic.
I've just seen the Maguire "penalty", and I don't believe that is a penalty either. But then I grew up in the era of Nobby Stiles, Johnny Giles, Big Jack, Norman Hunter, Alan Ball, Bryan Kidd, Kenny Burns, Chopper Harris, and my personal favourite Paddy Mulligan. With today's propensity for referees handing out penalties, every match would finish 45 all with those fellows playing, and all penalty goals.
I dont' think politicians should need to be a maths wizz to be on the front benches, they don't need to have demonstrable experience in that field, but I do think they need to have a good level of comprehension of economic and financial matters, and so develop those skills if they want to hold serious posts. You might not get a post in the Treasury but collectively ministers need to be at least a little financially savvy.
It's why I could not be an MP, as I simply find economic matters very hard to grasp even when explained to me, and despite all the other roles an MP has I think they should, with a bit of effort, understand that sort of thing.
Of course, they often make believe they don't understand things like the deficit or debt, so it is hard to judge.
A shoutout for the Politics, Philosophy and ECONOMICS degree then?
There's good news from Kemmerer, Wyoming: The small town is beginning to have faith in Bill Gates's promise to build a nuclear reactor there, which will provide jobs to replace the town's dwindling coal jobs. "But in a community idling in the latter half of its latest boom-bust cycle, misgivings have taken a back seat to optimism — and a dawning acceptance that a region built on coal, oil and gas may have little choice but to embrace a new identity. Amid empty downtown storefronts, a chic mercantile is about to open and a new coffee shop churns out lattes. Worn bungalows are selling quickly. A housing development is in the works." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/20/kemmerer-wyoming-coal-nuclear-bill-gates/ (I like the article's picture of the four deer crossing a main road in the town.)
(One more thing to blame "Czar" Putin for. The plant was originally going to use fuel from recycled Russian nuclear weapons. Now that is no longer available, it will have to find sources here in the uS, which will delay the starting time two years.)
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
Hmm. I do find it quite shocking that Boris didn’t understand “doubling times”. That’s not advanced maths
But I wonder as to the veracity of Vallance’s report. It is bound to be self serving; he also comes across as quite pig-headed and unobservant - may simply have misread Bojo
There's a valuable aphorism along the lines of 'If you can't explain a concept successfully to a layman, you either don't understand it yourself, or you don't want them to understand it.'. Perhaps Vallance didn't understand the science himself, and that's why he failed to explain it.
Well that is nonsense isn't it. My son tries to explain quantum computing to me, plus lots of other stuff and I have a maths degree but I don't get it. There is loads of maths and physics I just couldn't explain to a layman because it isn't that simple. Loads of people just can't get their head around calculus, not even the most basic concept. Just the idea to some of imaginary numbers is beyond comprehension for most people.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Hmm. I do find it quite shocking that Boris didn’t understand “doubling times”. That’s not advanced maths
But I wonder as to the veracity of Vallance’s report. It is bound to be self serving; he also comes across as quite pig-headed and unobservant - may simply have misread Bojo
There's a valuable aphorism along the lines of 'If you can't explain a concept successfully to a layman, you either don't understand it yourself, or you don't want them to understand it.'. Perhaps Vallance didn't understand the science himself, and that's why he failed to explain it.
Well that is nonsense isn't it. My son tries to explain quantum computing to me, plus lots of other stuff and I have a maths degree but I don't get it. There is loads of maths and physics I just couldn't explain to a layman because it isn't that simple. Loads of people just can't get their head around calculus, not even the most basic concept. Just the idea to some of imaginary numbers is beyond comprehension for most people.
That depends the degree to which one wishes to be informed. You can't become an expert on something just because someone is good at explaining it, but you can gain sufficient grasp of the basic concepts involved to appreciate that their recommendations are grounded in those concepts. I strongly suspect that Vallance both rather enjoyed bamboozling Boris with the science, and wasn't massively confident in it himself. As you suggest, even within the same overarching subject, disciplines differ widely, so one wouldn't blame him.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
The short version is that it is impossible to seperate them.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
I am in a rare moment of agreement.
The key points for the enquiry should be what worked, what didn't, and a cost benefit assessment. Useful lessons from these are essential.
The political gossip and who called whom a fuckwit when arguing about the above is titillating but not much use as there are no lessons to learn.
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Of all the arguments one can consider about the Gaza situation, "What does Burgon think so I can think the opposite?" must win the triviality prize, sheesh. It's not a straight left/right issue, and I see no reason to think she's not sincere (possibly because I agree with her).
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
I am in a rare moment of agreement.
The key points for the enquiry should be what worked, what didn't, and a cost benefit assessment. Useful lessons from these are essential.
The political gossip and who called whom a fuckwit when arguing about the above is titillating but not much use as there are no lessons to learn.
This is only one section though, focussing on decision making. There will be other sections, and hopefully a clearer appraisal of what worked and didn’t and consideration of other nations approaches. It also doesn’t help that th3 media is doing what it does and focussed on the minutia of he said, she said etc, rather than bigger pictures.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I yield to no one in acknowledging the calculating insincerity of Anas, but it’s for how many hoots Scottish voters give, not the conscience of the Bibi.
They should have had a penalty earlier for Maguire's magic.
I've just seen the Maguire "penalty", and I don't believe that is a penalty either. But then I grew up in the era of Nobby Stiles, Johnny Giles, Big Jack, Norman Hunter, Alan Ball, Bryan Kidd, Kenny Burns, Chopper Harris, and my personal favourite Paddy Mulligan. With today's propensity for referees handing out penalties, every match would finish 45 all with those fellows playing, and all penalty goals.
Well I'm confused because I thought the penalty wasn't and the one that wasn't was.
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Of all the arguments one can consider about the Gaza situation, "What does Burgon think so I can think the opposite?" must win the triviality prize, sheesh. It's not a straight left/right issue, and I see no reason to think she's not sincere (possibly because I agree with her).
I think Jess is sincere, and in polling a ceasefire is popular across all parties and age groups. It isn't a fringe position.
The whole debate is pointless though. Neither Israel nor Hamas care what motions are passed in our Parliament.
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Of all the arguments one can consider about the Gaza situation, "What does Burgon think so I can think the opposite?" must win the triviality prize, sheesh. It's not a straight left/right issue, and I see no reason to think she's not sincere (possibly because I agree with her).
It's nonsensical anyway.
It implies Burgon thinks, and such we know is not the case.
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Of all the arguments one can consider about the Gaza situation, "What does Burgon think so I can think the opposite?" must win the triviality prize, sheesh. It's not a straight left/right issue, and I see no reason to think she's not sincere (possibly because I agree with her).
It's nonsensical anyway.
It implies Burgon thinks, and such we know is not the case.
I now have a complex scheme to utilise the stupidity of Burgon and the DfE in a perpetual motion machine.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Of all the arguments one can consider about the Gaza situation, "What does Burgon think so I can think the opposite?" must win the triviality prize, sheesh. It's not a straight left/right issue, and I see no reason to think she's not sincere (possibly because I agree with her).
I think Jess is sincere, and in polling a ceasefire is popular across all parties and age groups. It isn't a fringe position.
The whole debate is pointless though. Neither Israel nor Hamas care what motions are passed in our Parliament.
Jess is vittue signalling. And staying on the right side of her antisemitic constituents.
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
I am in a rare moment of agreement.
The key points for the enquiry should be what worked, what didn't, and a cost benefit assessment. Useful lessons from these are essential.
The political gossip and who called whom a fuckwit when arguing about the above is titillating but not much use as there are no lessons to learn.
It was inevitable we were always going to get that, it being what is of interest to politicians, the media, and let's be honest the public as well. My hope was that we'd get that froth but that some actually useful lessons would come through as a side consequence.
I've not paid close enough attention to know if that seems likely, but I'm never optimistic about that. That people bitch in messages and that the power players were more chaotic and uncertain behind closed doors than they admitted in public does not strike me as an especially useful insight, so I hope we get more.
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
I've had some involvement in the enquiry at local Government level and the central theme is about the response to the pandemic and the co-ordination between central and local Government as well as how groups like Local Resilience Forums responded to the developing emergency.
The fact remains the Conservatives were in Government (who remembers talk of a Government of National Unity?) and therefore as the decision makers the enquiry is asking how decisions were taken and on what bases, what kind of criteria were used and what advice was given and taken. It's not an esoteric discussion on lockdowns per se but the processes and rationales by which the decisions to impose both the initial and subsequent lockdowns were taken.
There's a more interesting point at work - sometimes these enquiries aren't meant to be rational and legalistic but cathartic, a chance for those who suffered to vent at those who they believed caused their suffering. Government functions on the basis of accountability to the electorate and that accountability is being demonstrated by this enquiry but if you are looking for other answers, you may be looking in the wrong place.
And other than handwringing and virtue signalling, what will that actually achieve?
This is where Phillips was foolish last week. She sacrificed some excellent work on UK women's rights for something of no realistic benefit to the people of Gaza, because Bibi couldn't give two hoots about what some gobby Brummie thinks.
I think in the case of Phillips and co they sacrificed a few things now for an easy election campaign come the next election
Nothing stopping Starmer reappointing them after the election, too.
Phillips will be back imo.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
I entirely support democracy but its bad and disappointing people feel they need to do the wrong thing to appeal to bigots in their constituency.
Jess Phillips has been until the past week long been one of my favourite Labour MPs, one of the few of that party I could respect in Corbyn's years, its a real shame to see her do what she's done this past week. Its a shame she didn't feel she could stand up to those bigots rather than kowtow to them.
The sheer arrogance of this post is astounding.
You have a firm view on the Israeli action in Gaza that you have shared repeatedly. I am sure your view is sincerely held and I respect it.
Is it not possible that Phillips also has a sincere view that is different to yours?
No, you assume that your view is the only possible view to hold and that Phillips must therefore be deliberately compromising her principles and kowtowing to bigots in her constituency.
Arrogance.
Now just wait one second. Perhaps you may want to re-read the post I was responding to, which would have been visible to you, before you respond to me in that way.
"Keir can I have a word?" "Sure Jess." "Well you know my constituency is ..." "You need to rebel on Gaza?" "I think I do. I'm getting hammered." "Ok. So go for it. It's fine." "Really?" "Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat." "Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
Of all the arguments one can consider about the Gaza situation, "What does Burgon think so I can think the opposite?" must win the triviality prize, sheesh. It's not a straight left/right issue, and I see no reason to think she's not sincere (possibly because I agree with her).
I think Jess is sincere, and in polling a ceasefire is popular across all parties and age groups. It isn't a fringe position.
The whole debate is pointless though. Neither Israel nor Hamas care what motions are passed in our Parliament.
Nor do either of them want a ceasefire. So, the argument is moot anyways.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea…
“I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea” could be a new hit format. Take celebrities and put them in uncomfortable situations.
Like four British celebs being given a cup of tea which is not their order, and seeing which one cracks and speaks up first about not getting the right one. Such awkwardness and tension!
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
He did end restrictions sooner than many others wanted, however, which was braver than some however.
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
Yes, it contrasts strongly with the PO inquiry.
Which, notably, politicians do not seem to give a shit about.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
I believe in the urgency of the situation the first lockdowns were justified, but restrictions were too quickly reimposed later and then went on too long when more was known and treatment/prevention was higher.
I would hope that an inquiry might cause reflection on whether legislation was necessary, or if voluntary compliance can be shown to be just as effective, and measures such as applied to schools which even at the time seemed poor, could be improved by what we know now.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
People can choose to shield as best as they can, that's free will.
Those who chose not to, shouldn't have been forced to.
And young people's education should never have been messed with.
Dicking around with education that will affect people potentially for the rest of their life, 70+ more years, is not worthwhile to prevent some people from getting sick or dying from entirely natural causes.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Covid killed people of ALL ages. If you fail to understand that, there is no hope of a regional debate on this. It also made young people very unwell, and they were the ones who got the chance of ventialation. (You don’t ventiallate 80 year olds). The greatest risk with covid was crashing the system and people dying of other things because the NHS was overwhelmed.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Covid killed people of ALL ages. If you fail to understand that, there is no hope of a regional debate on this. It also made young people very unwell, and they were the ones who got the chance of ventialation. (You don’t ventiallate 80 year olds). The greatest risk with covid was crashing the system and people dying of other things because the NHS was overwhelmed.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
People can choose to shield as best as they can, that's free will.
Those who chose not to, shouldn't have been forced to.
And young people's education should never have been messed with.
Dicking around with education that will affect people potentially for the rest of their life, 70+ more years, is not worthwhile to prevent some people from getting sick or dying from entirely natural causes.
The effects are education are overstated. Once you leave school, go to uni or get a job, it rarely matter what GCSE grade you got, or what class of degree. We’ve been mitigating for covid effects at Uni for years and are gradually winding it back now (rightly). Too many are seeking to use it as an excuse for not doing the work.
No doubt we should have worked harder to keep education going better. But it was an unprecedented situation.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Covid killed people of ALL ages. If you fail to understand that, there is no hope of a regional debate on this. It also made young people very unwell, and they were the ones who got the chance of ventialation. (You don’t ventiallate 80 year olds). The greatest risk with covid was crashing the system and people dying of other things because the NHS was overwhelmed.
People of all ages get sick and die.
So what?
Life goes on.
Do you believe we should try to save lives generally? It sounds like you jus5 don’t give a shit.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
You couldn't, that's why.
But that's not a reason why we should have closed schools and locked down people, it was a horrendous mistake.
We should have accepted that a perfect shielding was impossible and that people would die.
"The NHS being overwhelmed" is bollocks too, the NHS is always overwhelmed, that's why there's things like triage, NICE, waiting lists etc
If the NHS gets overwhelmed then triage to determine who can best be helped and wish the others luck.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Covid killed people of ALL ages. If you fail to understand that, there is no hope of a regional debate on this. It also made young people very unwell, and they were the ones who got the chance of ventialation. (You don’t ventiallate 80 year olds). The greatest risk with covid was crashing the system and people dying of other things because the NHS was overwhelmed.
People of all ages get sick and die.
So what?
Life goes on.
Do you believe we should try to save lives generally? It sounds like you jus5 don’t give a shit.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I’m sure camel nipples are fine. Likewise any meaty part of a mammal. I would struggle with live insects. Dead cooked ones are bad enough, I’ve tried beetly/ crickety things a couple of times and not a fan.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
Partly because the proponents of this all seem to be young, ‘why should I stop doing what I like’ types, rather than anything else. It’s not unlike people wanting higher taxes on everyone else. Other people should lockdown so I don’t have to. How would you cope at work if all those told to shield did so? How many teachers, doctors, nurses, road hauliers was that?
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
Yes, it contrasts strongly with the PO inquiry.
Which, notably, politicians do not seem to give a shit about.
Oh, they do.
They know there is a massive governmental failing at the heart of the scandal, and wish this to be kept as quiet as possible. Their chances of doing so are enhanced by the fact there is more than one government of more than one color at fault. Also, the legal system failed dismally, as did many senior legal people.
They all have a vested interest in the inquiry dragging on endlessly, which is how it is shaping at the moment.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I’m sure camel nipples are fine. Likewise any meaty part of a mammal. I would struggle with live insects. Dead cooked ones are bad enough, I’ve tried beetly/ crickety things a couple of times and not a fan.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
You couldn't, that's why.
But that's not a reason why we should have closed schools and locked down people, it was a horrendous mistake.
We should have accepted that a perfect shielding was impossible and that people would die.
"The NHS being overwhelmed" is bollocks too, the NHS is always overwhelmed, that's why there's things like triage, NICE, waiting lists etc
If the NHS gets overwhelmed then triage to determine who can best be helped and wish the others luck.
Would you have been that sanguine if one of your children was turned away?
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
People can choose to shield as best as they can, that's free will.
Those who chose not to, shouldn't have been forced to.
And young people's education should never have been messed with.
Dicking around with education that will affect people potentially for the rest of their life, 70+ more years, is not worthwhile to prevent some people from getting sick or dying from entirely natural causes.
The effects are education are overstated. Once you leave school, go to uni or get a job, it rarely matter what GCSE grade you got, or what class of degree. We’ve been mitigating for covid effects at Uni for years and are gradually winding it back now (rightly). Too many are seeking to use it as an excuse for not doing the work.
No doubt we should have worked harder to keep education going better. But it was an unprecedented situation.
No, the effects on education are understated, especially for the most vulnerable who struggled most during lockdown.
For those who were in a well off middle class household, then yes it was less, and by looking at the uni perspective you've already filtered out many of those who were worst affected as those who did badly from lockdown aren't coming your way.
Which is not just those who were in A Levels when there was Covid. Those who were in Year 7 or 8 when Covid hit are now coming up to final exams in school now and those who were let down during Covid have not caught up.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
You couldn't, that's why.
But that's not a reason why we should have closed schools and locked down people, it was a horrendous mistake.
We should have accepted that a perfect shielding was impossible and that people would die.
"The NHS being overwhelmed" is bollocks too, the NHS is always overwhelmed, that's why there's things like triage, NICE, waiting lists etc
If the NHS gets overwhelmed then triage to determine who can best be helped and wish the others luck.
Would you have been that sanguine if one of your children was turned away?
Children are turned away all the time. We've been waiting nine months for an appointment for my daughter since she was referred to the hospital and we're still waiting. That's what the NHS does all the time, nothing original.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I’m sure camel nipples are fine. Likewise any meaty part of a mammal. I would struggle with live insects. Dead cooked ones are bad enough, I’ve tried beetly/ crickety things a couple of times and not a fan.
Some vegetarian camel nipple substitute for me, please!
There's good news from Kemmerer, Wyoming: The small town is beginning to have faith in Bill Gates's promise to build a nuclear reactor there, which will provide jobs to replace the town's dwindling coal jobs. "But in a community idling in the latter half of its latest boom-bust cycle, misgivings have taken a back seat to optimism — and a dawning acceptance that a region built on coal, oil and gas may have little choice but to embrace a new identity. Amid empty downtown storefronts, a chic mercantile is about to open and a new coffee shop churns out lattes. Worn bungalows are selling quickly. A housing development is in the works." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/20/kemmerer-wyoming-coal-nuclear-bill-gates/ (I like the article's picture of the four deer crossing a main road in the town.)
(One more thing to blame "Czar" Putin for. The plant was originally going to use fuel from recycled Russian nuclear weapons. Now that is no longer available, it will have to find sources here in the uS, which will delay the starting time two years.)
This is the cancellation of the US mini nukes, after costs rose 53%:
This enquiry is pretty shitty stuff really isn't it?
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
I am in a rare moment of agreement.
The key points for the enquiry should be what worked, what didn't, and a cost benefit assessment. Useful lessons from these are essential.
The political gossip and who called whom a fuckwit when arguing about the above is titillating but not much use as there are no lessons to learn.
It was inevitable we were always going to get that, it being what is of interest to politicians, the media, and let's be honest the public as well. My hope was that we'd get that froth but that some actually useful lessons would come through as a side consequence.
I've not paid close enough attention to know if that seems likely, but I'm never optimistic about that. That people bitch in messages and that the power players were more chaotic and uncertain behind closed doors than they admitted in public does not strike me as an especially useful insight, so I hope we get more.
The other difficulty is that if one's to get to the truth as to why some stuff worked and other stuff didn't, how decisions were taken, what was throwing money away and what was a really effective intervention, you need as much as possible out there - which also includes the bitchy stuff.
Otherwise you get the sanitised version where everyone covers for each other and an 'official' version of history that parks anything that says we messed up. Especially important too given many WhatsApps wouldn't be released, ever, if not here.
Obviously while the inquiry is ongoing, that means the media pick up on the bitchy tittle-tattle - it gets clicks, sells papers, and gives blowhards something to prattle on about on TV and radio. But you'd hope those writing the conclusion can ignore all that, sift through it and use it to come up with some good recommendations of what to do and what not to in future.
I'd be interested in the overlap between people who rated Boris Johnson and people with a Maths A level at B or above. Quite small I'd imagine.
*Raises hand*
But it depends what you mean by “rated”. He got the referendum won. He avoided a second referendum that would have been lost. He ensured a hard-ish Brexit. He turns out to have kept our lockdown as short as was ever going to be possible, albeit more by luck than judgement.
He was very useful.
And he's trashed the Tory brand for a generation meaning I'm happy too. A little something for everyone.
Edit: Well done on that Maths.
Ooo I’ll have some of your benefit too. Labour hasn’t quite got there, but my dream scenario was to Brexit and then vote for “Blue Labour” governments.
Mind too. I thought Boris’s govt was a bit like that, or maybe I just hoped it would be. Covid got in the way, so we will never know
If only Sir Keir wasn’t the arch second referendum chaser, as well as being an unlikeable liar, I’d love to vote for them again. Would feel like coming home. I had to ask my parents if they’d hate me if I voted Conservative in 2019.
Bring back Ed Miliband and Maurice Glasman!
Your 2nd ref point is strong and authentic. A committed leaver such as yourself is entitled to hold that grudge against SKS until their dying day.
But the point about lying, no, you don't really feel that. You can't feel that because as a Boris Johnson supporter you by definition have a high tolerance for mendacity in politics.
Seems strange, but the difference is that it was factored in with Boris - we knew he had form for lying, and that was the rough to his kind of devil may care smooth; he was a bounder and we knew it.
With Sir Keir, he has built a reputation as honest, loyal, quite pious in tone… but is as bigger liar in his political life as Boris. Aside from the leadership pledge lies & the Brexit snideyness, the ‘men can have a cervix’/oh no they can’t, the vegetarianism when he eats animals, the knighthood when he said he was a Republican; it’s all so… I can’t thinking the word… annoying! Just 100% the kind of person I don’t like in life
You talk of Boris as if you loved him and so could forgive all his foibles. That's what 'factored in' really means.
At the same time the slightest "transgression" from Starmer is used as a stick with which to beat him. There's almost a dossier of this seeming hypocrisy yet we are to believe Boris has never been a liar, hypocite or undermined the position of a previous Party leader.
It's a view...
Who says so?
I said I knew what Boris was like, everyone knows it. The difference is that Sir Keir has also lied, flip flopped, been evasive, and has strangely flexible morals but it’s only me that notices or is bothered by it. Literally no one else on here cares, because he’s their man, whilst at the same time anyone who defends Boris, whilst acknowledging his faults, is a ‘fanboy’, ‘in love’ and the rest
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I’m sure camel nipples are fine. Likewise any meaty part of a mammal. I would struggle with live insects. Dead cooked ones are bad enough, I’ve tried beetly/ crickety things a couple of times and not a fan.
Some vegetarian camel nipple substitute for me, please!
Not sure you will be able to do the jungle programme with that attitude.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Covid killed people of ALL ages. If you fail to understand that, there is no hope of a regional debate on this. It also made young people very unwell, and they were the ones who got the chance of ventialation. (You don’t ventiallate 80 year olds). The greatest risk with covid was crashing the system and people dying of other things because the NHS was overwhelmed.
A wider question is how easily the NHS could have been overwhelmed, and close it still is to being overwhelmed. Lack of spare capacity, since well before Covid. This also applies to most of our public services, because too many people won’t pay the taxes or pay for the investment required to fund them.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower.
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
I'd be interested in the overlap between people who rated Boris Johnson and people with a Maths A level at B or above. Quite small I'd imagine.
*Raises hand*
But it depends what you mean by “rated”. He got the referendum won. He avoided a second referendum that would have been lost. He ensured a hard-ish Brexit. He turns out to have kept our lockdown as short as was ever going to be possible, albeit more by luck than judgement.
He was very useful.
And he's trashed the Tory brand for a generation meaning I'm happy too. A little something for everyone.
Edit: Well done on that Maths.
Ooo I’ll have some of your benefit too. Labour hasn’t quite got there, but my dream scenario was to Brexit and then vote for “Blue Labour” governments.
Mind too. I thought Boris’s govt was a bit like that, or maybe I just hoped it would be. Covid got in the way, so we will never know
If only Sir Keir wasn’t the arch second referendum chaser, as well as being an unlikeable liar, I’d love to vote for them again. Would feel like coming home. I had to ask my parents if they’d hate me if I voted Conservative in 2019.
Bring back Ed Miliband and Maurice Glasman!
Your 2nd ref point is strong and authentic. A committed leaver such as yourself is entitled to hold that grudge against SKS until their dying day.
But the point about lying, no, you don't really feel that. You can't feel that because as a Boris Johnson supporter you by definition have a high tolerance for mendacity in politics.
Seems strange, but the difference is that it was factored in with Boris - we knew he had form for lying, and that was the rough to his kind of devil may care smooth; he was a bounder and we knew it.
With Sir Keir, he has built a reputation as honest, loyal, quite pious in tone… but is as bigger liar in his political life as Boris. Aside from the leadership pledge lies & the Brexit snideyness, the ‘men can have a cervix’/oh no they can’t, the vegetarianism when he eats animals, the knighthood when he said he was a Republican; it’s all so… I can’t thinking the word… annoying! Just 100% the kind of person I don’t like in life
You talk of Boris as if you loved him and so could forgive all his foibles. That's what 'factored in' really means.
At the same time the slightest "transgression" from Starmer is used as a stick with which to beat him. There's almost a dossier of this seeming hypocrisy yet we are to believe Boris has never been a liar, hypocite or undermined the position of a previous Party leader.
It's a view...
Who says so?
I said I knew what Boris was like, everyone knows it. The difference is that Sir Keir has also lied, flip flopped, been evasive, and has strangely flexible morals but it’s only me that notices or is bothered by it. Literally no one else on here cares, because he’s their man, whilst at the same time anyone who defends Boris, whilst acknowledging his faults, is a ‘fanboy’, ‘in love’ and the rest
The blind spot on this site about Boris was always astonishing.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower
There are some things I want to see on telly and some things I don't and Nigel Farage's naked arse would definitely be at the bottom of my list... In fact it wouldn't even make my list.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower.
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
Your worst post. Ever.
Mention of "Farage's naked backside" should lead to a ban. Stomach-churning.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower.
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower.
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
Your worst post. Ever.
Mention of "Farage's naked backside" should lead to a ban. Stomach-churning.
There’s a niche for every fetish. I’m not googling this one though….
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower.
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
However you colour Farage he is still a ****!
Not a word I would normally use lightly.
You *a*'* get away with that sort of language on here you know!
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower.
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
Your worst post. Ever.
Mention of "Farage's naked backside" should lead to a ban. Stomach-churning.
There’s a niche for every fetish. I’m not googling this one though….
I doubt whether even @TSE’s legendary dockside stepmom would want to see Farage’s arse.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I’m sure camel nipples are fine. Likewise any meaty part of a mammal. I would struggle with live insects. Dead cooked ones are bad enough, I’ve tried beetly/ crickety things a couple of times and not a fan.
Some vegetarian camel nipple substitute for me, please!
Never having consumed a camel's nipple and not being a vegetarian I'm spectacularly unqualified to offer advice in this matter, but my preliminary suggestion would be the stalk end of an aubergine marinated in cold coffee.
I think Nigel Farage could do very well out of I'm a celebrity. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't be watching, but it feels like a very canny decision. The thing is with Farage, he's very wily and a consummate battle-scarred politician. If the producers try to manipulate the show to make him look bad (not saying they would), they are going to fall very flat - they'd be up way past their bedtime playing politics with Farage.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
I've kind of assumed the plan was always to take a more prominent political role again if the circumstances were right. Farage seems pretty canny to me, and at least as far as most people are concerned he's not been constantly popping up bemoaning this or that for the last few years, his career has had periods of relative quiet and others of very high profile, which lends itself to extending his usefulness as a political actor, whereas others have come and gone in the same period.
Brexit was being argued about on tonight's episode. Serieix vs Farage.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
Fair play to Sirieix - he’s up against a man whose whole career has been based on one argument, about Brexit.
He was good. Farage finally said something about agreeing to disagree. Not, I think, because he felt he was losing but because he knew the public dont want hear too much about it.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
I'm A Celebrity 2023: TV viewing figures fall by two million for opening show
May or may not be boosted with tonight's episode opening with Farage's naked backside in the open air natural shower
There are some things I want to see on telly and some things I don't and Nigel Farage's naked arse would definitely be at the bottom of my list... In fact it wouldn't even make my list.
I hope 'bottom of my list' was a pun or are you making a list of bottoms
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
Indeed. Risk segmentation was always the wisest approach, potentially, if it could be worked through. Nobody really tried.
I'd be interested in the overlap between people who rated Boris Johnson and people with a Maths A level at B or above. Quite small I'd imagine.
*Raises hand*
But it depends what you mean by “rated”. He got the referendum won. He avoided a second referendum that would have been lost. He ensured a hard-ish Brexit. He turns out to have kept our lockdown as short as was ever going to be possible, albeit more by luck than judgement.
He was very useful.
And he's trashed the Tory brand for a generation meaning I'm happy too. A little something for everyone.
Edit: Well done on that Maths.
Ooo I’ll have some of your benefit too. Labour hasn’t quite got there, but my dream scenario was to Brexit and then vote for “Blue Labour” governments.
Mind too. I thought Boris’s govt was a bit like that, or maybe I just hoped it would be. Covid got in the way, so we will never know
If only Sir Keir wasn’t the arch second referendum chaser, as well as being an unlikeable liar, I’d love to vote for them again. Would feel like coming home. I had to ask my parents if they’d hate me if I voted Conservative in 2019.
Bring back Ed Miliband and Maurice Glasman!
Your 2nd ref point is strong and authentic. A committed leaver such as yourself is entitled to hold that grudge against SKS until their dying day.
But the point about lying, no, you don't really feel that. You can't feel that because as a Boris Johnson supporter you by definition have a high tolerance for mendacity in politics.
Seems strange, but the difference is that it was factored in with Boris - we knew he had form for lying, and that was the rough to his kind of devil may care smooth; he was a bounder and we knew it.
With Sir Keir, he has built a reputation as honest, loyal, quite pious in tone… but is as bigger liar in his political life as Boris. Aside from the leadership pledge lies & the Brexit snideyness, the ‘men can have a cervix’/oh no they can’t, the vegetarianism when he eats animals, the knighthood when he said he was a Republican; it’s all so… I can’t thinking the word… annoying! Just 100% the kind of person I don’t like in life
You talk of Boris as if you loved him and so could forgive all his foibles. That's what 'factored in' really means.
At the same time the slightest "transgression" from Starmer is used as a stick with which to beat him. There's almost a dossier of this seeming hypocrisy yet we are to believe Boris has never been a liar, hypocite or undermined the position of a previous Party leader.
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
Its the circle of life, people get old, and die.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Yes but we weren't talking about "old people", we were talking about significant numbers of people over the age of, say 45. I'd like to think aged 57 at the time, I had up to another 20 years left on planet Earth.
Anyway your economy would have been well and truly f***** if a majority of over 45s had succumbed.
Your posts read like they were written by the ghost of Harold Shipman.
I'd be interested in the overlap between people who rated Boris Johnson and people with a Maths A level at B or above. Quite small I'd imagine.
*Raises hand*
But it depends what you mean by “rated”. He got the referendum won. He avoided a second referendum that would have been lost. He ensured a hard-ish Brexit. He turns out to have kept our lockdown as short as was ever going to be possible, albeit more by luck than judgement.
He was very useful.
And he's trashed the Tory brand for a generation meaning I'm happy too. A little something for everyone.
Edit: Well done on that Maths.
Ooo I’ll have some of your benefit too. Labour hasn’t quite got there, but my dream scenario was to Brexit and then vote for “Blue Labour” governments.
Mind too. I thought Boris’s govt was a bit like that, or maybe I just hoped it would be. Covid got in the way, so we will never know
If only Sir Keir wasn’t the arch second referendum chaser, as well as being an unlikeable liar, I’d love to vote for them again. Would feel like coming home. I had to ask my parents if they’d hate me if I voted Conservative in 2019.
Bring back Ed Miliband and Maurice Glasman!
Your 2nd ref point is strong and authentic. A committed leaver such as yourself is entitled to hold that grudge against SKS until their dying day.
But the point about lying, no, you don't really feel that. You can't feel that because as a Boris Johnson supporter you by definition have a high tolerance for mendacity in politics.
Seems strange, but the difference is that it was factored in with Boris - we knew he had form for lying, and that was the rough to his kind of devil may care smooth; he was a bounder and we knew it.
With Sir Keir, he has built a reputation as honest, loyal, quite pious in tone… but is as bigger liar in his political life as Boris. Aside from the leadership pledge lies & the Brexit snideyness, the ‘men can have a cervix’/oh no they can’t, the vegetarianism when he eats animals, the knighthood when he said he was a Republican; it’s all so… I can’t thinking the word… annoying! Just 100% the kind of person I don’t like in life
You talk of Boris as if you loved him and so could forgive all his foibles. That's what 'factored in' really means.
At the same time the slightest "transgression" from Starmer is used as a stick with which to beat him. There's almost a dossier of this seeming hypocrisy yet we are to believe Boris has never been a liar, hypocite or undermined the position of a previous Party leader.
I'd be interested in the overlap between people who rated Boris Johnson and people with a Maths A level at B or above. Quite small I'd imagine.
*Raises hand*
But it depends what you mean by “rated”. He got the referendum won. He avoided a second referendum that would have been lost. He ensured a hard-ish Brexit. He turns out to have kept our lockdown as short as was ever going to be possible, albeit more by luck than judgement.
He was very useful.
And he's trashed the Tory brand for a generation meaning I'm happy too. A little something for everyone.
Edit: Well done on that Maths.
Ooo I’ll have some of your benefit too. Labour hasn’t quite got there, but my dream scenario was to Brexit and then vote for “Blue Labour” governments.
Mind too. I thought Boris’s govt was a bit like that, or maybe I just hoped it would be. Covid got in the way, so we will never know
If only Sir Keir wasn’t the arch second referendum chaser, as well as being an unlikeable liar, I’d love to vote for them again. Would feel like coming home. I had to ask my parents if they’d hate me if I voted Conservative in 2019.
Bring back Ed Miliband and Maurice Glasman!
Your 2nd ref point is strong and authentic. A committed leaver such as yourself is entitled to hold that grudge against SKS until their dying day.
But the point about lying, no, you don't really feel that. You can't feel that because as a Boris Johnson supporter you by definition have a high tolerance for mendacity in politics.
Seems strange, but the difference is that it was factored in with Boris - we knew he had form for lying, and that was the rough to his kind of devil may care smooth; he was a bounder and we knew it.
With Sir Keir, he has built a reputation as honest, loyal, quite pious in tone… but is as bigger liar in his political life as Boris. Aside from the leadership pledge lies & the Brexit snideyness, the ‘men can have a cervix’/oh no they can’t, the vegetarianism when he eats animals, the knighthood when he said he was a Republican; it’s all so… I can’t thinking the word… annoying! Just 100% the kind of person I don’t like in life
You talk of Boris as if you loved him and so could forgive all his foibles. That's what 'factored in' really means.
At the same time the slightest "transgression" from Starmer is used as a stick with which to beat him. There's almost a dossier of this seeming hypocrisy yet we are to believe Boris has never been a liar, hypocite or undermined the position of a previous Party leader.
It's a view...
It’s a view is the worst PB cliche of all time.
That’s a view you can have for nothing.
At the end of the day, Boris got ALL the big calls right!
The characterisation of letting people die showing no leadership is incorrect. Not having another lockdown would have been the tough decision and would have been extremely brave of the government and it would have required extraordinary leadership to actually do it. In the end Boris chose the easy option and bankrupted the nation so that a few over 80s could extend their lives by another few months.
I still don't understand why people in vulnerable categories couldn't have been told to stay at home, while people not in vulnerable categories could carry on as normal.
Because the young go out, catch COVID, come home and kill the middle aged and elderly.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
My wife needed to shield. So I needed to shield too. Call me overly cautious, but I didn't want to kill her.
I think some don’t live in the real world. The idea that society is segmented, and oldies only live with and interact with other oldies is absurd. And yet many (presumably young people) still say only the vulnerable should have been locked down, as if that was possible.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
But there was never a detailed plan about how you could do shielding of the vulnerable and let the rest carry on working and going to school.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
Indeed. Risk segmentation was always the wisest approach, potentially, if it could be worked through. Nobody really tried.
I'm picturing some public health medics in government saying "Well, you never know. Let's give it a whirl. Worst that happens is everyone's dead but has had a thorough eye test."
Comments
Although some of the key features which could mitigate economic inactivity through lost days from more mundane contagious diseases, like the common cold and post vaccination COVID strains, could have been encouraged by Government such as stringent personal hygiene, the use of masks and hand gels available in every public use building. That sort of behaviour isn't even encouraged in hospital. And to be clear, if you're not wearing your mask, neither am I.
It's a view...
"Keir can I have a word?"
"Sure Jess."
"Well you know my constituency is ..."
"You need to rebel on Gaza?"
"I think I do. I'm getting hammered."
"Ok. So go for it. It's fine."
"Really?"
"Yes. Just pop me a resignation, get yourself reelected next year and then we'll have a chat."
"Cheers boss."
If Jess Phillips is being sincere here in throwing in her lot with Richard Burgon etc then I would feel less of her (as kle4 suggested) but for a totally different reason.
As it happens, I think @kinabalu hit the nail on the head and that is her reason for acting that way. Which as I said, is disreputable, but happens in democracies.
But if you want to have a go at someone for insinuating that she is insincere, it wasn't me that started that train of thought.
"1. It is possible to describe how people in a group think as a whole.
2. In some cases, groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.
3.The three conditions for a group to be intelligent are diversity, independence, and decentralization.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
There is more, but the most important condition is probably independence. The title of the original book is somewhat misleading, since real crowds (or even, these days, internet crowds) almost always weaken, or even destroy, independence.
I was a little surprised by some earlier comments, since I thought the requirement for independence was understood by most educated people.
(Military experts may want to correct me on this, but I believe some militaries, before making a command decision, poll their officers -- beginning with the most junior, and working up to the most senior. This is another way of achieving some degree of independence.)
Not sure how many Argentines would survive the process, but hey....
That was sort of the point…
"But in a community idling in the latter half of its latest boom-bust cycle, misgivings have taken a back seat to optimism — and a dawning acceptance that a region built on coal, oil and gas may have little choice but to embrace a new identity. Amid empty downtown storefronts, a chic mercantile is about to open and a new coffee shop churns out lattes. Worn bungalows are selling quickly. A housing development is in the works."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/20/kemmerer-wyoming-coal-nuclear-bill-gates/ (I like the article's picture of the four deer crossing a main road in the town.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemmerer,_Wyoming
(One more thing to blame "Czar" Putin for. The plant was originally going to use fuel from recycled Russian nuclear weapons. Now that is no longer available, it will have to find sources here in the uS, which will delay the starting time two years.)
Its only purpose in life seems to be to make everyone aghast at how awful the Tories are, rather than whether lockdowns were effective, proportionate and fair, whether the Nightingale programme should have been abandoned sooner, whether covid patients should have been treated in separate hospitals, which treatment protocols lead to the best results in covid sufferers, whether travel restrictions should have come in sooner, later, or not at all - you know, actual useful information.
Instead we're getting the awful uncouth Tory show. I already know how uncouth, unprofessional and shit Boris's No. 10 outfit was; I care about it only inasmuch as it may have lead to a tendency to kick key political decisions to 'experts' who I suspect had been captured by lockdown-mania.
That's like deciding to switch to driving on the right and staggering the roll out with odd numbered cars switching first
The key points for the enquiry should be what worked, what didn't, and a cost benefit assessment. Useful lessons from these are essential.
The political gossip and who called whom a fuckwit when arguing about the above is titillating but not much use as there are no lessons to learn.
Then if he does end up with newfound fame and adulation, what does he do? Go back to Reform and finish off the Tory Party?
The whole debate is pointless though. Neither Israel nor Hamas care what motions are passed in our Parliament.
It implies Burgon thinks, and such we know is not the case.
Bit like this - https://youtu.be/Z8yW5cyXXRc?si=hGv_dr_IVZboJxRR
His delay cost a lot of lives.
Neither is a good place to be.
I've not paid close enough attention to know if that seems likely, but I'm never optimistic about that. That people bitch in messages and that the power players were more chaotic and uncertain behind closed doors than they admitted in public does not strike me as an especially useful insight, so I hope we get more.
The fact remains the Conservatives were in Government (who remembers talk of a Government of National Unity?) and therefore as the decision makers the enquiry is asking how decisions were taken and on what bases, what kind of criteria were used and what advice was given and taken. It's not an esoteric discussion on lockdowns per se but the processes and rationales by which the decisions to impose both the initial and subsequent lockdowns were taken.
There's a more interesting point at work - sometimes these enquiries aren't meant to be rational and legalistic but cathartic, a chance for those who suffered to vent at those who they believed caused their suffering. Government functions on the basis of accountability to the electorate and that accountability is being demonstrated by this enquiry but if you are looking for other answers, you may be looking in the wrong place.
So, the argument is moot anyways.
Sorry, I was taking it a bit literally there.
Its sad. Mourn them and move on.
We're not meant to be immortal. People die, its not the end of the world.
Removing civil liberties, closing schools etc to prevent old people from getting sick was a horrendous mistake.
Hindsight is wonderful. Judge peoples decisions by what was known at the time.
Rest of them walked away to do washing up as they "had enough" of brexit arguing.
That is probably a good snapshot of the uk public frankly.
I would hope that an inquiry might cause reflection on whether legislation was necessary, or if voluntary compliance can be shown to be just as effective, and measures such as applied to schools which even at the time seemed poor, could be improved by what we know now.
Those who chose not to, shouldn't have been forced to.
And young people's education should never have been messed with.
Dicking around with education that will affect people potentially for the rest of their life, 70+ more years, is not worthwhile to prevent some people from getting sick or dying from entirely natural causes.
So what?
Life goes on.
No one in authority bothered to even try.
It was dismissed as ravings of a few lunatics like Bhattacharya (Stanford).
It is a disgrace that there was no team at No 10 and Public Dishealth England wargaming an alternative like this.
Farage later ate camel nipples tonight.
No doubt we should have worked harder to keep education going better. But it was an unprecedented situation.
But that's not a reason why we should have closed schools and locked down people, it was a horrendous mistake.
We should have accepted that a perfect shielding was impossible and that people would die.
"The NHS being overwhelmed" is bollocks too, the NHS is always overwhelmed, that's why there's things like triage, NICE, waiting lists etc
If the NHS gets overwhelmed then triage to determine who can best be helped and wish the others luck.
Farage will claim to be a builder’s man but once unsupervised is having Earl Grey.
He makes and offers you the builders, and you have to guess if it fits. If you say it does and you’re wrong then he says “that’s not my cup of tea”.
Hit format right there.
They know there is a massive governmental failing at the heart of the scandal, and wish this to be kept as quiet as possible. Their chances of doing so are enhanced by the fact there is more than one government of more than one color at fault. Also, the legal system failed dismally, as did many senior legal people.
They all have a vested interest in the inquiry dragging on endlessly, which is how it is shaping at the moment.
But they certainly give a shit.
For those who were in a well off middle class household, then yes it was less, and by looking at the uni perspective you've already filtered out many of those who were worst affected as those who did badly from lockdown aren't coming your way.
Which is not just those who were in A Levels when there was Covid. Those who were in Year 7 or 8 when Covid hit are now coming up to final exams in school now and those who were let down during Covid have not caught up.
There's no blank cheque.
Nine polls since the reshuffle and the average Labour lead in those nine polls compared with each pollster's previous poll is...
Unchanged on 20.4%.
Cons and Lab both down 1.3% when averaged across those nine polls. (LD up 1%; SNP up 0.8%; Reform up 0.4%; others up 0.2%.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-08/first-us-small-nuclear-project-canceled-after-costs-climb-53?leadSource=uverify wall
Otherwise you get the sanitised version where everyone covers for each other and an 'official' version of history that parks anything that says we messed up. Especially important too given many WhatsApps wouldn't be released, ever, if not here.
Obviously while the inquiry is ongoing, that means the media pick up on the bitchy tittle-tattle - it gets clicks, sells papers, and gives blowhards something to prattle on about on TV and radio. But you'd hope those writing the conclusion can ignore all that, sift through it and use it to come up with some good recommendations of what to do and what not to in future.
I said I knew what Boris was like, everyone knows it. The difference is that Sir Keir has also lied, flip flopped, been evasive, and has strangely flexible morals but it’s only me that notices or is bothered by it. Literally no one else on here cares, because he’s their man, whilst at the same time anyone who defends Boris, whilst acknowledging his faults, is a ‘fanboy’, ‘in love’ and the rest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67449085
How are you with heights?
Whatever else one may think of Farage he has more charisma than Sunak or Starmer, Flynn or Davey and indeed current leader of his ReformUK Party, Richard Tice.
If he returned to lead ReformUK with voters fed up with the Tories but not greatly enthused by Starmer, he could make some inroads, especially in the debates
Mention of "Farage's naked backside" should lead to a ban. Stomach-churning.
Not a word I would normally use lightly.
Brazil 5%
Argentina 140%
That’s a view you can have for nothing.
Anyway your economy would have been well and truly f***** if a majority of over 45s had succumbed.
Your posts read like they were written
by the ghost of Harold Shipman.
(Two clichés for the price of one).
I bet @TheScreamingEagles had a tear in his eye!