It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Nandy is anti Trident renewal and anti monarchy, in some respects she is worse than Long Bailey
No one cares.
Demonstrably not true. HYUFD cares.
As will working class Leave voters who went Tory this time and who Nandy is supposed to appeal to
Nandy would do what it takes to win, like she did in her own constituency.
To suggest that “working class leavers” are obsessed with trident and the monarchy is ridiculous anyway.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Nandy is anti Trident renewal and anti monarchy, in some respects she is worse than Long Bailey
RLB will be unveiled as leader, elected by the "silent majority" of members who remain loyal to the Jeremy.
Yes I know that CLP meetings largely endorsed Starmer. My former CLP nomination meeting had just 26 of the 700 members there...
Yougov did a full members poll with Starmer miles ahead
The cult have been rubbishing polls for years, especially fake ones produced by Tory owned YouGov to attack Jeremy. They have spent 4 years seizing control to build True Socialism. Why give all that up because of a vote? Did they give up their Europe policy just because Conference voted against it? No! They simply declared that the vote was actually the other way despite the obvious truth that it wasn't.
I genuinely will be surprised if they don't rig this.
Yougov had Corbyn winning the members vote easily in 2015 and 2016 but Starmer ahead this time, I suspect Yougov will be right and the Electoral Commission counts the votes and conducts the ballot to prevent dodgy practices
I do wonder if Buttigieg and Klobuchar would be doing better if they didn’t have such totally unpronounceable names.
Names do often matter in history. Hitler’s surname would have been Shickelgruber had his father not suddenly returned to his mother when he was young, having been away for many years. It’s difficult to imagine thousands of Nazis chanting “Heil Shickelgruber”
The stereotype, even on pb where someone included it as a tongue-in-cheek justification for tipping John Hickenlooper, is that American candidates have unpronounceable names but they do not: Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, all plain and straightforward.
And Nixon, Reagan, Carter and Truman.
The most “unpronounceable” victors I can think of would be Eisenhower and Roosevelt. But even those had a memetic flow to them.
Labour is electing the Leader of the Opposition. That's not quite the same thing as Prime Minister.
Only if Labour want to form a government.
Just looking prime ministerial is not enough: ask Michael Howard. The new LotO needs to discredit Boris and the Tories first.
I'm not sure Michael Howard looked Prime Ministerial...
To be fair, next to IDS, virtually anyone did.
The Tories weren’t exactly spoilt for choice back then.
Funny how quickly these things can change though. Then very few people had heard of Cameron or Osborne who came to quickly dominate the party and British politics for more than a decade after Howard.
There's every chance a Labour version of Cameron and Osborne has been newly elected but we haven't cottoned on yet and after the next election they might come to the fore. It requires the leadership bringing through fresh blood though rather than returning to tired old faces (or batshit crazy loons like Burgon).
The next general election will be 13 years after Labour lost power, the same period in opposition for the Tories before Cameron won most seats but not a majority in 2010.
If as looks increasingly likely we go to No Trade Deal WTO+ terms in December and recession follows it is complacent from Tories to say Starmer could not get enough seats next time to become PM, even if he requires LD support as Cameron did in 2010 and falls short of a majority
Brexit will lead to recession?
Tories are complacent?
Next PM might be Labour?
Has HY's account been hacked???
No, in 2019 I expected Boris to win a majority and beat Corbyn and deliver Brexit.
Boris having won a majority and beaten Corbyn and delivered Brexit the next general election will be a much harder battle, I will still vote and campaign for the Tories of course but I would not be at all surprised to see a hung parliament and Starmer PM after
RLB will be unveiled as leader, elected by the "silent majority" of members who remain loyal to the Jeremy.
Yes I know that CLP meetings largely endorsed Starmer. My former CLP nomination meeting had just 26 of the 700 members there...
Yougov did a full members poll with Starmer miles ahead
HYUFD is right on this IMO - Rochdale is still in "they're all rubbish, that's why I left!" defector mode. The non-attendees are I think more pro-Starmer than the attendees.
Like TSE I don't see any value in the market - the top 2/3 bet is probably the correct one, but not worth tying up money for 6 weeks at those odds, especially as it's hard to be quite sure of the 2nd place outcome. I'm not detecting much support for Nandy, but I only really know one southern and one Midlands constituency.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Nandy is anti Trident renewal and anti monarchy, in some respects she is worse than Long Bailey
No one cares.
Demonstrably not true. HYUFD cares.
As will working class Leave voters who went Tory this time and who Nandy is supposed to appeal to
Nandy would do what it takes to win, like she did in her own constituency.
To suggest that “working class leavers” are obsessed with trident and the monarchy is ridiculous anyway.
Clearly she would not, if Nandy says she wants to scrap the Queen then working class patriots who voted for Boris will ignore the rest of what she says regardless
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
If you want to win this -- then that is exactly what you should do.
Avoid making firm commitments, but mouth vague indications of support.
The time for "home truths" is later. Quite a bit later, after you have won & consolidated your position.
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
Well she(Nandy) is anti monarchy and anti Trident, so that should exclude her on any basis.
Hard to know which is the worse prospect for Labour: Corbyn in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet (presumably in some very senior role?) or Corbyn back on the backbenchers, free to criticise as only he knows how....
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
As a PB veteran you should surely know that in a three-way contest it doesn't matter whether you write '3' on the ballot paper or not?
Buttigeig now looking like he'll finish a distant third in Nevada under the viability threshold for statewide delegates.
Could one of the people predicting Pete winning the candidacy explain where things went wrong? He actually overperformed expectations in both Iowa (where it's still quite possible that he was gifted an unearned victory news cycle) and NH. And that actually did give him a boost in Nevada- but not nearly enough to overcome his dreadful starting point, lack of minority support, and lack of organisation or spending after the first two states
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
As a PB veteran you should surely know that in a three-way contest it doesn't matter whether you write '3' on the ballot paper or not?
Hard to know which is the worse prospect for Labour: Corbyn in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet (presumably in some very senior role?) or Corbyn back on the backbenchers, free to criticise as only he knows how....
The former by a country mile. Being criticised by Jeremy Corbyn is exactly what the new leader needs.
Buttigeig now looking like he'll finish a distant third in Nevada under the viability threshold for statewide delegates.
Could one of the people predicting Pete winning the candidacy explain where things went wrong? He actually overperformed expectations in both Iowa (where it's still quite possible that he was gifted an unearned victory news cycle) and NH. And that actually did give him a boost in Nevada- but not nearly enough to overcome his dreadful starting point, lack of minority support, and lack of organisation or spending after the first two states
To come from nowhere, with only experience of being a city mayor, and get where he is, including a dead heat in Iowa, shows how impressive he is.
It may well all be over soon, but he was well worth a flutter.
Hard to know which is the worse prospect for Labour: Corbyn in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet (presumably in some very senior role?) or Corbyn back on the backbenchers, free to criticise as only he knows how....
Make him shadow leader of house. That way he would have to work across the aisle with evil Tories every day. He would soon quit.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Keir is a poundshop Jeremy Corbyn.
Starmer has a +5% rating with voters with Mori, compared to -46% for Corbyn and -8% for Boris
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
Nandy has had a difficult few weeks and her callowness does show. But, I think she has a great future. For a Labour politician, she is actually very, very likeable.
Perhaps the most likeable Labour pol since Blair at the very height of his powers.
You should not underestimate this quality when people cast their votes (cf Boris who is not reliable or honest, but is a likeable scallywag).
Starmer may be efficient & competent but he is not likeable.
But turning every compromise into an existential moral failing is not a smart way to practice politics. It comforts the persuaded while alienating the persuadable.
It is exactly what Labour has done here - and is continuing to do now; see their nonsense on transgender issues.
Her comments on Queen Meghan, transgender rights and Scotland all seem rather naive to me.
She has begun to remind me of Jo Swinson, too inexperienced & callow for the top job at the moment.
So, I think RLB will get second safely enough.
She’s put me off with all of that but, given I’m the precise opposite of her target audience, that’s probably a good thing for her vote amongst the members.
She certainly isn’t a Liz Kendall Mark II.
I feel much the same. It’s a lack of experience but also an inability to think matters through from first principles. If you’re a republican, the issue of the individual is irrelevant, for instance.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
Nandy has had a difficult few weeks and her callowness does show. But, I think she has a great future. For a Labour politician, she is actually very, very likeable.
Perhaps the most likeable Labour pol since Blair at the very height of his powers.
You should not underestimate this quality when people cast their votes (cf Boris who is not reliable or honest, but is a likeable scallywag).
Starmer may be efficient & competent but he is not likeable.
Labour should gamble with Nandy. It will pay big.
Boris seems likeable from a distance; there is plenty of evidence that he isn't likeable close up. Nandy might just be both.
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
How does your vote 3 come into play anyway?
For your ballot paper above, it would require Starmer not to top the ballot. Then someone has to drop out. If it is Nandy, then the second round "2" vote is for Starmer. If it is RLB who goes in round one, then it is a straight fight between Starmer and Nandy. Nandy still gets your vote in round 2 (as she has not been eliminated to have her vote redistributed). I'm not sure how we get to a third round unless it is eg. Nandy 49.99%, Starmer 49.98%, a David Miliband write-in 0.03%?
I can't see a scenario where your third choice ever comes into play. So why make it?
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
How does your vote 3 come into play anyway?
For your ballot paper above, it would require Starmer not to top the ballot. Then someone has to drop out. If it is Nandy, then the second round "2" vote is for Starmer. If it is RLB who goes in round one, then it is a straight fight between Starmer and Nandy. Nandy still gets your vote in round 2 (as she has not been eliminated to have her vote redistributed). I'm not sure how we get to a third round unless it is eg. Nandy 49.99%, Starmer 49.98%, a David Miliband write-in 0.03%?
I can't see a scenario where your third choice ever comes into play. So why make it?
It matters to me. It is irrelevant to the contest.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
Nandy has had a difficult few weeks and her callowness does show. But, I think she has a great future. For a Labour politician, she is actually very, very likeable.
Perhaps the most likeable Labour pol since Blair at the very height of his powers.
You should not underestimate this quality when people cast their votes (cf Boris who is not reliable or honest, but is a likeable scallywag).
Starmer may be efficient & competent but he is not likeable.
Labour should gamble with Nandy. It will pay big.
As well as brightness, quickness and a personable nature, Nandy also has an unusual feature for a politician - a number of male voters seem to think she has sex appeal. It's not uncommon for voters to think politicians look presentably impressive, like Thatcher, Heseltine, or in fact Starmer, but the number of UK politcians a significant number male or female view almost as sex symbols seems very small - possibly only Rory Stewart, Lisa Nandy and Penny Mordaunt at the moment.
I think her quirky orginality of thinking, among many other things, will give her a major role under Starmer, and she will be leader after him.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
Nandy has had a difficult fortnight. She’s shown a lot of political naivity and made some silly mistakes that have given me pause for thought. But she’s pondered hard on why Labour keeps losing and she’s strongest on anti-Semitism, so she gets my 1.
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
How does your vote 3 come into play anyway?
For your ballot paper above, it would require Starmer not to top the ballot. Then someone has to drop out. If it is Nandy, then the second round "2" vote is for Starmer. If it is RLB who goes in round one, then it is a straight fight between Starmer and Nandy. Nandy still gets your vote in round 2 (as she has not been eliminated to have her vote redistributed). I'm not sure how we get to a third round unless it is eg. Nandy 49.99%, Starmer 49.98%, a David Miliband write-in 0.03%?
I can't see a scenario where your third choice ever comes into play. So why make it?
It matters to me. It is irrelevant to the contest.
Typical Labour - so much angst-ridden hang-wringing about things that could never, ever matter.....
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Keir is a poundshop Jeremy Corbyn.
Starmer has a +5% rating with voters with Mori, compared to -46% for Corbyn and -8% for Boris
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It may alter it further when we discover in another week that all fifty were, er, conveniently outspoken critics of the regime....
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
Asian markets are having a bad morning. Korea down 3%, Shanghai, Sydney and oil all down more than 2%.
Yep. Looks like today is the day stock markets start thinking about the killer virus.
Looks like the events in Iran and Italy are confirming that this has spread out of Asia, and is now pretty much unstoppable as a global pandemic - unless everyone immediately ceases travelling for the next few months. Countries surrounding Iran and Italy have been closing borders overnight.
England are supposed to be travelling to Rome for the last 6N fixture, three weeks from now. That’s very likely to be either called off or played elsewhere, possibly in an empty stadium. Football matches are already being postponed in Serie A.
Only idiots or cretins are still travelling in any case, just lock the idiots up when they arrive.
Starting with the Scotland team and fans returning from Rome this morning?
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
I always thought, living a couple of hundred miles from Iran, that it was mostly military action I should be worried about. Turns out it's actually a Chinese virus
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It may alter it further when we discover in another week that all fifty were, er, conveniently outspoken critics of the regime....
There must be regimes out there thinking "Its a good day to bury bad news opposition"
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Keir is a poundshop Jeremy Corbyn.
Starmer has a +5% rating with voters with Mori, compared to -46% for Corbyn and -8% for Boris
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It may alter it further when we discover in another week that all fifty were, er, conveniently outspoken critics of the regime....
I had thought the same, that's the best case scenario from the point of view of stopping it spreading.
However, Iranians turning up in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have confirmed Coronavirus, and are in hospital in those countries.
"Experts have said that the dramatic rise in cases in Iran, South Korea and Italy over the last few days suggests the coronavirus has been silently spreading.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
I don't understand why the trans debate can't be resolved by saying "this is a medical issue and for medical experts to best judge on a case by case basis". Job done, move on.
I have no doubt some who say they are trans genuinely have gender dysphoria. I equally have no doubt some who say they are trans have mental health concerns. Saying that seems to be heretical though, but what is wrong with medical practitioners acting on a case by case basis?
I don't believe some who say they are trans are doing so to get "womens rights" but either way, let the medics deal with it and move on.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Keir is a poundshop Jeremy Corbyn.
Starmer has a +5% rating with voters with Mori, compared to -46% for Corbyn and -8% for Boris
Opinion polls correctly predicted Boris would beat Corbyn and Burnham, not Corbyn, polled best with the public of 2015 Labour leadership candidates.
Even on the poll you linked to Burnham was preferred to Corbyn as PM amongst voters as a whole and Tories preferred Burnham to Corbyn
Your cherrypicking of the final polls and claiming some sort of mystical insight while ignoring all the polls that came before which were wrong (which you were quoting at the time) is no more logical than the expression that your keys are "always in the last place you look". Yeah, of course they are, because you stop looking once you've found them!
On the poll I linked to Corbyn was the most popular candidate as quoted by the headline. Which is irrelevant because most polls are meaningless fluff.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
South Korea closing schools etc looks sensible now, Iran not yet taking the same tough quarantine actions
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
You don't think the world's been paying attention? Its been number one news story for a while now.
Labour is electing the Leader of the Opposition. That's not quite the same thing as Prime Minister.
Only if Labour want to form a government.
Just looking prime ministerial is not enough: ask Michael Howard. The new LotO needs to discredit Boris and the Tories first.
I'm not sure Michael Howard looked Prime Ministerial...
To be fair, next to IDS, virtually anyone did.
The Tories weren’t exactly spoilt for choice back then.
Funny how quickly these things can change though. Then very few people had heard of Cameron or Osborne who came to quickly dominate the party and British politics for more than a decade after Howard.
There's every chance a Labour version of Cameron and Osborne has been newly elected but we haven't cottoned on yet and after the next election they might come to the fore. It requires the leadership bringing through fresh blood though rather than returning to tired old faces (or batshit crazy loons like Burgon).
Cameron was tipped as the next big thing, though, in the Spectator in 2002. By Boris of all people.
You can usually spot a bit of potential or talent in the ranks.
Admittedly, I haven’t done this exercise on the current Labour crop.
Just check MPs who went to Eton and Oxford. Unlikely to get a better "talent and potential" PM filter.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
Is China worsening again ? Granted there is serious doubt over the accuracy of the official figures, but based on that, things appear to be steadying:
I'm supposed to be going to Bali in a couple of weeks, think I might cancel.
I've heard from someone who just got back that it's swarming with Chinese tourists as the Indonesian government is in a complete state of denial about it.
It’s a hopeless vista. I honestly don’t think there’s much between any of the remaining three. They are all in the wrong place on policy and in thrall to an activist base that refuses to make any concessions with the electorate. There’s no sense of urgency coming from any of them. Rather than serving as a platform to showcase the renewal of the party this leadership race is a grimy shop window for its continued decline.
Not my experience at all with Lisa Nandy. She was telling very hard truths when I heard her speak yesterday. Much more than Keir did.
Keir is a poundshop Jeremy Corbyn.
Starmer has a +5% rating with voters with Mori, compared to -46% for Corbyn and -8% for Boris
Opinion polls correctly predicted Boris would beat Corbyn and Burnham, not Corbyn, polled best with the public of 2015 Labour leadership candidates.
Even on the poll you linked to Burnham was preferred to Corbyn as PM amongst voters as a whole and Tories preferred Burnham to Corbyn
Your cherrypicking of the final polls and claiming some sort of mystical insight while ignoring all the polls that came before which were wrong (which you were quoting at the time) is no more logical than the expression that your keys are "always in the last place you look". Yeah, of course they are, because you stop looking once you've found them!
On the poll I linked to Corbyn was the most popular candidate as quoted by the headline. Which is irrelevant because most polls are meaningless fluff.
No, all the 2019 polls showed Boris comfortably beating Corbyn and he did.
On the 2015 poll you linked to Burnham led Corbyn as preferred PM and Burnham led Corbyn with Tories, that 2015 poll was also taken pre 2017 when Corbyn got a hung parliament not pre 2019, had Burnham become Labour leader in 2015 Labour might even have got most seats in 2017
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
You don't think the world's been paying attention? Its been number one news story for a while now.
No need to act like headless chickens though.
Very few reports from Africa or South America, which I assume are as susceptible as the rest of the world.
Most interesting will be the numbers from S.Korea over the next couple of weeks - a developed economy dealing with a major outbreak, and practising complete transparency.
If they can get it under some sort of control, then so would we be able to.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
You don't think the world's been paying attention? Its been number one news story for a while now.
No need to act like headless chickens though.
I will refrain from mocking you.
You posted dozens of times on my guest thread yesterday. Not once did a single post relate to the subject of the thread: the future of the monarchy.
If you pause to reflect on that for a second you might conclude that, quite aside from that being a bit rude, it’s remarkably tedious.
You could have at least tried to make a post about how coronavirus might carry off Philip or HMQ, but no: just stuck record stuff.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
Is China worsening again ? Granted there is serious doubt over the accuracy of the official figures, but based on that, things appear to be steadying:
I told you all about a week ago, in a long and measured analysis of the issue, that the Chinese policy was
1 to isolate Hubei province, and let it suffer 2 adjust the criteria for diagnosing the disease outside Hubei 3 do this in a way that would allow China to claim that coronavirus had somehow ended outside Hubei 4 thus enable the Chinese to force people back to work
Every single thing I predicted has come true. Does anyone seriously believe the Chinese have defeated coronavirus outside Hubei and that 1.3 billion non Hubei Chinese are getting fewer infections than the 3000 people on a cruise boat?
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It may alter it further when we discover in another week that all fifty were, er, conveniently outspoken critics of the regime....
I had thought the same, that's the best case scenario from the point of view of stopping it spreading.
However, Iranians turning up in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have confirmed Coronavirus, and are in hospital in those countries.
One of the few upsides to this horrible virus may be the toppling, or at least destabilizing, of some grisly regimes, that lie to their people. Starting with Iran.
Your cherrypicking of the final polls and claiming some sort of mystical insight while ignoring all the polls that came before which were wrong (which you were quoting at the time) is no more logical than the expression that your keys are "always in the last place you look". Yeah, of course they are, because you stop looking once you've found them!
On the poll I linked to Corbyn was the most popular candidate as quoted by the headline. Which is irrelevant because most polls are meaningless fluff.
No, all the 2019 polls showed Boris comfortably beating Corbyn and he did.
On the 2015 poll you linked to Burnham led Corbyn as preferred PM and Burnham led Corbyn with Tories, that 2015 poll was also taken pre 2017 when Corbyn got a hung parliament not pre 2019, had Burnham become Labour leader in 2015 Labour might even have got most seats in 2017
2019 was an election year, this is not. Its not a valid comparison. Plus you're cherrypicking again.
Corbyn's Labour had leads in selected polls in 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016.
Ed Milliband's Labour had leads in polls in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.
Nick Clegg's Lib Dems managed poll leads in selected polls in 2010.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
I don't understand why the trans debate can't be resolved by saying "this is a medical issue and for medical experts to best judge on a case by case basis". Job done, move on.
I have no doubt some who say they are trans genuinely have gender dysphoria. I equally have no doubt some who say they are trans have mental health concerns. Saying that seems to be heretical though, but what is wrong with medical practitioners acting on a case by case basis?
I don't believe some who say they are trans are doing so to get "womens rights" but either way, let the medics deal with it and move on.
I quite agree with you. Provide the necessary medical care to those with this condition, let people change their official gender only after a medical diagnosis and provide gender-neutral spaces for those in transition. Job done.
But that is not what the activists want and what they want does impact on the rights of women. And they do seem obsessed with ignoring women’s concerns and shouting down those who express them. So one wonders what else is going on.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
You don't think the world's been paying attention? Its been number one news story for a while now.
No need to act like headless chickens though.
I will refrain from mocking you.
You posted dozens of times on my guest thread yesterday. Not once did a single post relate to the subject of the thread: the future of the monarchy.
If you pause to reflect on that for a second you might conclude that, quite aside from that being a bit rude, it’s remarkably tedious.
You could have at least tried to make a post about how coronavirus might carry off Philip or HMQ, but no: just stuck record stuff.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
Is China worsening again ? Granted there is serious doubt over the accuracy of the official figures, but based on that, things appear to be steadying:
I told you all about a week ago, in a long and measured analysis of the issue, that the Chinese policy was
1 to isolate Hubei province, and let it suffer 2 adjust the criteria for diagnosing the disease outside Hubei 3 do this in a way that would allow China to claim that coronavirus had somehow ended outside Hubei 4 thus enable the Chinese to force people back to work
Every single thing I predicted has come true. Does anyone seriously believe the Chinese have defeated coronavirus outside Hubei and that 1.3 billion non Hubei Chinese are getting fewer infections than the 3000 people on a cruise boat?
It’s insane. The Chinese are lying.
I don't think you do 'measured'!
Nevertheless the killer virus is going to be the story of the year. And the markets (outside Asia) have finally woken up; FTSE down 230 so far and DOW forecast to open down over 700.
"Experts have said that the dramatic rise in cases in Iran, South Korea and Italy over the last few days suggests the coronavirus has been silently spreading.
Well, that wins today’s “No shit, Sherlock” award.
FTSE crashing. Annoying because I had decided at the weekend to short it today.
I did on Friday, and topped up this morning. It's still a credible position - lots of people at work will find out that their shares are sinking when they get home, and there will be further selloffs this week.
FTSE crashing. Annoying because I had decided at the weekend to short it today.
I did on Friday, and topped up this morning. It's still a credible position - lots of people at work will find out that their shares are sinking when they get home, and there will be further selloffs this week.
OTOH later this week might (just might!) be a good time to get some bargains.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
You don't think the world's been paying attention? Its been number one news story for a while now.
No need to act like headless chickens though.
Very few reports from Africa or South America, which I assume are as susceptible as the rest of the world.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It may alter it further when we discover in another week that all fifty were, er, conveniently outspoken critics of the regime....
I had thought the same, that's the best case scenario from the point of view of stopping it spreading.
However, Iranians turning up in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have confirmed Coronavirus, and are in hospital in those countries.
One of the few upsides to this horrible virus may be the toppling, or at least destabilizing, of some grisly regimes, that lie to their people. Starting with Iran.
Let's hope Boris gets it.
The kindler, gentler left showing its face again. Funny its always the kinder, gentler left that wishes physical harm on its opponents, not seen anyone wish it on Starmer or Corbyn or Sanders.
This thing about whether Starmer et al would offer Corbyn a Shadow Cabinet post is absolutely bizarre. The question about whether the leadership contenders would offer posts to the others is a valid question for seeing how the party would come together post contest, but Corbyn? Why should he want or demand it? What on earth are people claiming he has to offer the new leader going forward? Up until 2015 when has he ever shown evidence of being Shadow Cabinet material? And, for the cynic, when since? And if there’s one pretty consistent law in modern age U.K. politics, it’s that a new leader doesn’t want or need the old one hanging around like a bad smell.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
This is looking worse by the day.
Cases in Turkey, Afghan, Bahrain, Kuwait. It’s all over the Mid East. China worsening again.
Borders closing. Italy panicking. Credible reports the death toll in Hubei is way higher than first indicated.
This is maybe the day the pandemic took a grip on the world’s attention, if nothing else
You don't think the world's been paying attention? Its been number one news story for a while now.
No need to act like headless chickens though.
I will refrain from mocking you.
You posted dozens of times on my guest thread yesterday. Not once did a single post relate to the subject of the thread: the future of the monarchy.
If you pause to reflect on that for a second you might conclude that, quite aside from that being a bit rude, it’s remarkably tedious.
You could have at least tried to make a post about how coronavirus might carry off Philip or HMQ, but no: just stuck record stuff.
FTSE crashing. Annoying because I had decided at the weekend to short it today.
I did on Friday, and topped up this morning. It's still a credible position - lots of people at work will find out that their shares are sinking when they get home, and there will be further selloffs this week.
I've got £12-£14k of cash ready to put into stocks and shares once they bottom out.
The main effect of this virus will be to trigger a recession.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
Spreading into the courts?
At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
It's a post-dated total... (Guardian) ...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
It may alter it further when we discover in another week that all fifty were, er, conveniently outspoken critics of the regime....
I had thought the same, that's the best case scenario from the point of view of stopping it spreading.
However, Iranians turning up in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have confirmed Coronavirus, and are in hospital in those countries.
One of the few upsides to this horrible virus may be the toppling, or at least destabilizing, of some grisly regimes, that lie to their people. Starting with Iran.
Let's hope Boris gets it.
The kindler, gentler left showing its face again. Funny its always the kinder, gentler left that wishes physical harm on its opponents, not seen anyone wish it on Starmer or Corbyn or Sanders.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
Spreading into the courts?
At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
I don't understand why the trans debate can't be resolved by saying "this is a medical issue and for medical experts to best judge on a case by case basis". Job done, move on.
I have no doubt some who say they are trans genuinely have gender dysphoria. I equally have no doubt some who say they are trans have mental health concerns. Saying that seems to be heretical though, but what is wrong with medical practitioners acting on a case by case basis?
I don't believe some who say they are trans are doing so to get "womens rights" but either way, let the medics deal with it and move on.
I quite agree with you. Provide the necessary medical care to those with this condition, let people change their official gender only after a medical diagnosis and provide gender-neutral spaces for those in transition. Job done.
But that is not what the activists want and what they want does impact on the rights of women. And they do seem obsessed with ignoring women’s concerns and shouting down those who express them. So one wonders what else is going on.
The whole trans debate seems to me to some up how much the modern world has become all about “feelings” and people’s right to them and less about hard science. Because the experience of being a woman is more that just about outward experiences and interaction with other people. At a fundamental level it is about how your biological condition determines how you live your life. The differing experience of puberty, menstrual cycles, childbirth etc etc. And it doesn’t matter how much transgender people feel like women trapped in men’s bodies (or vice versa), and even if they go through medical procedures. They are still different and cannot demand equivalence on every level.
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
Labour taking a Top Trumps position on women's rights does kinda boggle the mind....
Somewhat unnoticed in the anti-semitism scandal was the misogyny and bullying towards women. There is I feel an element of that with some of the more extreme trans activists: yet another group of men (by that I do not mean those who have transitioned) telling women that they know best what being a woman is and means. As if we have not had to put up with that sort of nonsense for centuries.
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
I don't understand why the trans debate can't be resolved by saying "this is a medical issue and for medical experts to best judge on a case by case basis". Job done, move on. acting on a case by case basis?
I don't believe some who say they are trans are doing so to get "womens rights" but either way, let the medics deal with it and move on.
I quite agree with you. Provide the necessary medical care to those with this condition, let people change their official gender only after a medical diagnosis and provide gender-neutral spaces for those in transition. Job done.
But that is not what the activists want and what they want does impact on the rights of women. And they do seem obsessed with ignoring women’s concerns and shouting down those who express them. So one wonders what else is going on.
Madmen and women are telling children they must question whether they are really a boy or a girl. Grown men are breaking records in women’s sport. A completely crazy situation .
FTSE crashing. Annoying because I had decided at the weekend to short it today.
Cause and effect, not coincidence. You think you were the only one at the weekend to decide to short it today?
I would guess that the effect of people selling shares they actually own and going to cash or bonds is at least 100 000x as large as the effect of people shorting.
lots of people at work will find out that their shares are sinking when they get home, and there will be further selloffs this week.
I'm not a FTSE day trader (The US presidential markets are quite enough to be worrying about) and am just going to stay in for the next 20 years or so, but do people simply dump stocks because they've gone down ?!
Comments
To suggest that “working class leavers” are obsessed with trident and the monarchy is ridiculous anyway.
The most “unpronounceable” victors I can think of would be Eisenhower and Roosevelt. But even those had a memetic flow to them.
Boris having won a majority and beaten Corbyn and delivered Brexit the next general election will be a much harder battle, I will still vote and campaign for the Tories of course but I would not be at all surprised to see a hung parliament and Starmer PM after
Like TSE I don't see any value in the market - the top 2/3 bet is probably the correct one, but not worth tying up money for 6 weeks at those odds, especially as it's hard to be quite sure of the 2nd place outcome. I'm not detecting much support for Nandy, but I only really know one southern and one Midlands constituency.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1231863259613007872?s=20
Starmer gets my 2. He has been solid and steady throughout, but has lit no fires. I trust him to assemble a strong shadow cabinet and to provide proper opposition. Boring might be quite a virtue by 2024, but he will never electrify the country or the Labour party.
I will not use my 3. To be fair, Long-Bailey has been better than I was expecting, but that is a very low bar. She is backed by all the wrong people and would keep them all in place. There is no way I could ever vote for that.
For deputy it’s Murray 1 and Allin-Khan 2. I like them both a lot, but Murray edges it because he has not pandered to anyone during the campaign and has spoken hard truths. Labour needs that. I won’t vote for Rayner, Butler or Burgon. Rayner has been a huge disappointment.
It's a Boris bonus.
Avoid making firm commitments, but mouth vague indications of support.
The time for "home truths" is later. Quite a bit later, after you have won & consolidated your position.
Could one of the people predicting Pete winning the candidacy explain where things went wrong? He actually overperformed expectations in both Iowa (where it's still quite possible that he was gifted an unearned victory news cycle) and NH. And that actually did give him a boost in Nevada- but not nearly enough to overcome his dreadful starting point, lack of minority support, and lack of organisation or spending after the first two states
It may well all be over soon, but he was well worth a flutter.
Not every single thing that happens today is down to the 2016 result. England didn't beat Ireland in the rugby because we voted to Leave.
Perhaps the most likeable Labour pol since Blair at the very height of his powers.
You should not underestimate this quality when people cast their votes (cf Boris who is not reliable or honest, but is a likeable scallywag).
Starmer may be efficient & competent but he is not likeable.
Labour should gamble with Nandy. It will pay big.
https://twitter.com/scottishsun/status/1231866555564273665?s=21
You may not be her target audience but I possibly am as a voter. And the one thing I have got from the Labour leadership election is that Labour cannot be trusted to defend women’s rights. It feels to me that they have not understood what equality and civil rights really mean or how you find a compromise which does not allow one group to trample on another’s rights - they are still adopting a Top Trumps approach to the issue - and that when people disagree or say something different their instinct is to expel and cast out rather than listen and seek compromise. In short they are behaving very similarly to how they did under Corbyn.
I can get that sort of behaviour under Boris’s Tories. I’d like an alternative please.
For your ballot paper above, it would require Starmer not to top the ballot. Then someone has to drop out. If it is Nandy, then the second round "2" vote is for Starmer. If it is RLB who goes in round one, then it is a straight fight between Starmer and Nandy. Nandy still gets your vote in round 2 (as she has not been eliminated to have her vote redistributed). I'm not sure how we get to a third round unless it is eg. Nandy 49.99%, Starmer 49.98%, a David Miliband write-in 0.03%?
I can't see a scenario where your third choice ever comes into play. So why make it?
I think her quirky orginality of thinking, among many other things, will give her a major role under Starmer, and she will be leader after him.
50 deaths in five days says there's thousands infected in Iran, and as there's been no attempt at quarantine until a few days ago, likely to be tens of thousands more about to show symptoms.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036023/Boris-Johnson-spend-Tony-Blair-Chancellors-Budget-pushes-figure-1trillion.html
...the 50 deaths date as far back as Feb. 13. Iran, however, first officially reported cases of the virus and its first deaths on Feb. 19.
Which doesn't make it any better, though it does rather alter the analysis of the situation.
That's about as useful as quoting that opinion polls say Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular candidate: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/14/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-most-popular-candidate-voters-all-parties
The shame of it is that there is an obvious compromise position available and a very real issue which does need attention - namely the lack of medical care for those with gender dysphoria. All lost when a small extremist group hijacks an issue and politicians are too scared to stand up to them for fear of not showing the necessary ideological purity.
Even on the poll you linked to Burnham was preferred to Corbyn as PM amongst voters as a whole and Tories preferred Burnham to Corbyn
However, Iranians turning up in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have confirmed Coronavirus, and are in hospital in those countries.
"Experts have said that the dramatic rise in cases in Iran, South Korea and Italy over the last few days suggests the coronavirus has been silently spreading.
I have no doubt some who say they are trans genuinely have gender dysphoria. I equally have no doubt some who say they are trans have mental health concerns. Saying that seems to be heretical though, but what is wrong with medical practitioners acting on a case by case basis?
I don't believe some who say they are trans are doing so to get "womens rights" but either way, let the medics deal with it and move on.
On the poll I linked to Corbyn was the most popular candidate as quoted by the headline. Which is irrelevant because most polls are meaningless fluff.
No need to act like headless chickens though.
Granted there is serious doubt over the accuracy of the official figures, but based on that, things appear to be steadying:
https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1231609049558458370
I've heard from someone who just got back that it's swarming with Chinese tourists as the Indonesian government is in a complete state of denial about it.
On the 2015 poll you linked to Burnham led Corbyn as preferred PM and Burnham led Corbyn with Tories, that 2015 poll was also taken pre 2017 when Corbyn got a hung parliament not pre 2019, had Burnham become Labour leader in 2015 Labour might even have got most seats in 2017
Anyone have any information for those?
If they can get it under some sort of control, then so would we be able to.
If you pause to reflect on that for a second you might conclude that, quite aside from that being a bit rude, it’s remarkably tedious.
You could have at least tried to make a post about how coronavirus might carry off Philip or HMQ, but no: just stuck record stuff.
Corbyn's Labour had leads in selected polls in 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016.
Ed Milliband's Labour had leads in polls in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.
Nick Clegg's Lib Dems managed poll leads in selected polls in 2010.
But that is not what the activists want and what they want does impact on the rights of women. And they do seem obsessed with ignoring women’s concerns and shouting down those who express them. So one wonders what else is going on.
Nevertheless the killer virus is going to be the story of the year. And the markets (outside Asia) have finally woken up; FTSE down 230 so far and DOW forecast to open down over 700.
The main effect of this virus will be to trigger a recession.
At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1231850565405200384?s=20
Or is that just comments from an ignorant male?
https://twitter.com/leng_cath/status/1231540109897535489?s=21