Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.
Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.
The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.
And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
One interesting point - on the Conservatives increasing the tax free allowance (and clawing it back for the well off via the tax bands), the Labour activists I've met have often stated that "that doesn't do anything for ordinary people".
I think one ex-Labour voter put it like this - "Labour have lost interest in the low paid labour. Their interest is in the non-labour."
Ah oh wise one I am you know. Been down this road so many many times before. Except from 1997-2010 the years all good Labour members would love to forget.
What road?
Look -
Labour have been in power for 30 of the 75 years since WW2. 1945 to 1951. 1964 to 1970. 1974 to 1979. 1997 to 2010.
5 PMs there. Attlee. Wilson. Callaghan. Blair. Brown. Very different people. Very different politics. And so much has happened over that time. How the world has changed. How the country has changed.
As it is changing now. Gosh, isn't it just. The virus. Brexit. A grim recession looming. So much national debt that it makes you dizzy to even think about it.
And all people can say about Labour is they have to "move back to the centre ground" if they want to win the next GE because ... well because Tony?
C'mon. Elevate.
Callaghan was very different to Wilson. Brown was very different to Blair. Both were thrown out by the voters at the first opportunity.
When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.
Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.
The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.
For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.
Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
Id guess at least a quarter of households will have someone who wont cope with a month long lockdown. Very few will cope with a three month lockdown going into summer.
I'm alone at home with nothing to do, have been since my firm decided to suspend operations on Monday. I'm already going fairly spare. Three weeks of this I could stand. Three months probably not.
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.
His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.
Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.
The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
A rising tide floats all boats.
Every country in the world is having a rally round the leader phenomenon at the moment.
And most major countries around the world are led by the centre-right or further, so the net effect is...
Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.
Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.
The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.
And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
The Conservatives pay lip service to making the poor richer.
Lip service like doubling the personal allowance for income tax over the past decade, taking millions of low paid workers out of income tax completely and letting tens of millions more keep more of their own money?
The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
Except to those people actually in the meetings with him, it is reported.
The manifesto and policies offered were far to the left of the winning manifesto and policies. Just because you'd rather something more extreme does not make them "timid".
We have a language problem here. In 2015 it was "to the left" not "far to the left" of the Cons.
If you misuse the term "far to the left" you leave yourself with nowhere to go when discussing something that IS far to the left - e.g the Labour 2019 manifesto.
By abusing the language like that you have rendered the 2019 manifesto - quite literally - indescribable.
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
Goodness me - that last question by the Express journalist - are her verbal comprehension skills really so bad that she misunderstood what Jenny Harries had said to such an extent?
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.
His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.
Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.
The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
A rising tide floats all boats.
Every country in the world is having a rally round the leader phenomenon at the moment.
An American journalist on a German radio programme today pointed out that yes, Trump is getting a "rally around the leader" boost, but it is maximum 5%-points. Bush post-9/11 had a 40%-point boost.
I'm puzzled as to what constitutes a "working majority" ?
Wilson won a majority in October 1974 as did John Major in 1992 and David Cameron in 2015.
Wilson lost his majority and the Labour Government under Callaghan was ultimately felled by a VoNC in early 1979. Major's Government went pretty much its full term and Cameron's Government could have gon e on until 2020 had the EU referendum not intervened.
May had a majority (except on the not insignificant issue of Brexit) until 2017 when she threw it away.
I'd argue both Major and Cameron won working majorities as well - Wilson arguably not (though in October 1964 he only won by 4).
Wilson did not lose his majority post October 1974. That occurred later in 1976 when Callaghan was PM.
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.
His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.
Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.
The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
A rising tide floats all boats.
Every country in the world is having a rally round the leader phenomenon at the moment.
And most major countries around the world are led by the centre-right or further, so the net effect is...
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.
His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.
Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.
The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
A rising tide floats all boats.
Every country in the world is having a rally round the leader phenomenon at the moment.
And most major countries around the world are led by the centre-right or further, so the net effect is...
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
My point related specifically to Batterea and Putney . You really are as thick as pigshit when it comes to psephology. The more you say the more you highlight your ignorance. Battersea and Putney 'trending to Labour' indeed!
And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?
I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -
We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.
So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.
What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
Look at Scandinavia, you dont need to predict from theory, it has worked there for a few decades.
There are a number of billionaires in various Scandinavian countries. They are just less flamboyant.
Indeed. And a flourishing and happy middle class. But the poor have been "elevated".
I suggest you have a look outside the nice middle class areas of, say, Sweden.
Is it perfect? No, but they tend to rank in the top 10 of most happiness surveys that are done and they have less extreme poverty than the rest of the west. Perhaps the two are linked.
What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
It's hardly a fetish to want to see a substantial reduction in inequality as a very high priority of government. But, OK, to avoid writing reams, I will answer the question as posed.
Yes, I DO want to move to Scunthorpe. That's exactly right. And I want them to move here.
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
My point related specifically to Batterea and Putney . You really are as thick as pigshit when it comes to psephology. The more you say the more you highlight your ignorance.
We are in the heart of a 'pandemic' costing many lives and jobs and if you think anyone is interested in who won a seat in some past election, and then resort to abusive language, you are off the scale of relevance
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
It's hardly a fetish to want to see a substantial reduction in inequality as a very high priority of government. But, OK, to avoid writing reams, I will answer the question as posed.
Yes, I DO want to move to Scunthorpe. That's exactly right. And I want them to move here.
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
My point related specifically to Batterea and Putney . You really are as thick as pigshit when it comes to psephology. The more you say the more you highlight your ignorance.
We are in the heart of a 'pandemic' costing many lives and jobs and if you think anyone is interested in who won a seat in some past, election and then resort to abusive language, you are off the scale of relevance
What happened to kinder gentler politics
I replied to an earlier post. Felix then accused me of 'Bullshit'. If you are so offended by such language , I suggest you direct your comment to the person who first used it!
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
I think this is a valid theme for a thread
And I really do not have any answers but I cannot see freedom to do as we wish much before the late autumn
Less pollution from cars and airplanes and those hideous floating hotels.
A reminder that we are all susceptible equally. (Speaking of which in passing I wonder whether Charles is using alternative medicine to treat his case. Just asking.)
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
My point related specifically to Batterea and Putney . You really are as thick as pigshit when it comes to psephology. The more you say the more you highlight your ignorance.
We are in the heart of a 'pandemic' costing many lives and jobs and if you think anyone is interested in who won a seat in some past, election and then resort to abusive language, you are off the scale of relevance
What happened to kinder gentler politics
I replied to an earlier post. Felix then accused me of 'Bullshit'. If you are so offended by such language , I suggest you direct your comment to the person who first used it!
There is a need for everyone to practice a kinder politics
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
I think this is a valid theme for a thread
And I really do not have any answers but I cannot see freedom to do as we wish much before the late autumn
The depressing thing is that if it’s not til late autumn that we get back our freedom I fear many will be out of jobs and the state of the country will be an absolute wreck.
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
No-one knows. Hopefully we can watch the Italians and Spanish have a go first and then adapt our plan to what happens there.
Less pollution from cars and airplanes and those hideous floating hotels.
A reminder that we are all susceptible equally. (Speaking of which in passing I wonder whether Charles is using alternative medicine to treat his case. Just asking.)
The air in London feels like the air in Sussex by the sea, where my family once lived, at the moment. I've never known it like that, and the physiological effect is noticeable, for me, cancelling out the lethargy of being confined to home.
What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
It's hardly a fetish to want to see a substantial reduction in inequality as a very high priority of government. But, OK, to avoid writing reams, I will answer the question as posed.
Yes, I DO want to move to Scunthorpe. That's exactly right. And I want them to move here.
Metaphorically.
But not literally. 🙄
Well no one ever said ‘putting the kinabalu into Scunthorpe‘.....
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.
Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.
The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.
For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.
Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
Id guess at least a quarter of households will have someone who wont cope with a month long lockdown. Very few will cope with a three month lockdown going into summer.
Unless you are limited to a very small flat I cannot see what the issue is if you have food, water , beer and broadband. Anyone in a decent house with a garden , will be fine and I imagine that is the majority. Can imagine that living in London will be hellish but such is life.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
These experts are Doctors, the voters trust Doctors, especially the ones that work for the NHS.
And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?
I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -
We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.
So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.
What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
Except the money those people could never spend goes in multifarious ways into banks, businesses consumption and employment. Hardly any of it is left under the bed.
unfortunately it is offshore tax havens mainly , so we see no benefit as these arses don't pay tax , that and the non domicile joke are pathetic. Greedy gits are not happy being awash with money , they don't even want to pay tax on it.
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
My point related specifically to Batterea and Putney . You really are as thick as pigshit when it comes to psephology. The more you say the more you highlight your ignorance. Battersea and Putney 'trending to Labour' indeed!
Oh dear we have rattled your cage haven't we. Clearly you don't know that part of london where I lived for 25 years. Still waiting for the answer to my question. You dare 'nt quote the facts for either seat dare you. Battersea has long been a marginal and has swung between the parties so much it regularly features on election programmes. Putney less so but now once again a Labour marginal. Rmeind us while you're wallowing in my 'pigshit' how many Scottish Labour MPs held on in December thanks to your famed incumbency bonus.
I'll help you with Battersea:
1983 Labour maj 3276; 1987 Con maj 857 1992 Con maj 4840 1997 Lab 5360; 2001 Lab 5053; 2005 Lab maj 163 2010 Con maj; 5957 2015 Con maj 7938; 2017 Lab maj 2416 2019 Lab maj 5668.
Even now hardly the safest seat and it has never been safe Tory either. It's a swing seat. In 2019 despite doing relatively well in London the only gain was Putney and they lost Kensington. you emphasise 'gentrification' as favouring the Tories whilst forgetting the demographic trend to ethnic minorities which continues to work the other way all over much of inner London.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
These experts are Doctors, the voters trust Doctors, especially the ones that work for the NHS.
I think, critically, they are not perceived as having a political agenda. They are only trying to maintain public health. (Also, it's a combination of Doctors and Scientists ;-))
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
By “no one” you mean Leavers. Since they are possessed by a wild pathological hatred of the EU, they would have abandoned the laws of physics if they conflicted with their beliefs.
It still applies to Covid-19, where they would prefer to put lives at risk than work with the EU.
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
I think this is a valid theme for a thread
And I really do not have any answers but I cannot see freedom to do as we wish much before the late autumn
The depressing thing is that if it’s not til late autumn that we get back our freedom I fear many will be out of jobs and the state of the country will be an absolute wreck.
The thing I find really difficult about many of the Corbynistas (including the man himself) is the apparent lack of concern over the point made in this article.
Something I hear a lot (from nice people very often) is, "Ah, but he inspired ME". To which one can only respond, "It's not all about you, mate... if you really believe in it yourself, it's about all those less well off people who have a Conservative Government for the foreseeable future".
Labour used to be packed with pragmatists who wouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good - including some privately hard left folk with the sense to know that their view was not a majority one, and the grace to fall in behind something well short of their ideal in order to get things done.
There is massive denial of where they are at the moment. Even justin124 in the previous thread was claiming that while losing in the north Labour now held former Tory strongholds, including Battersea. I lived there many years and it was a Labour marginal for many years under Alf Dubs before becming a Tory marginal for a while in the 90s - back to Labour under Blair, etc. ie never a safe Tory seat.
Battersea as a constituency did not exist until 1983. Prior to that there were two seats - Battersea North which was safe for Labour and represented for many years by Douglas Jay - and Battersea South which was a marginal.The new seat - Battersea was only once won by Alf Dubs - in 1983. He was defeated by John Bowis in 1987 - and again much more heavily in 1992.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
These experts are Doctors, the voters trust Doctors, especially the ones that work for the NHS.
Not strange at all.
The predictions by the 'experts' wrt Brexit were often shown to be baloney. Huge fall in house prices due to just the vote ! Half a million unemployed !
When your predictions don't happen, you lose credibility.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
It's easy - Science and Medicine are of a different order in that respect to Economists and Sociologists.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
Today's "experts" are hard scientists and doctors - people who are instinctively trusted - as opposed to faceless bureaucrats, civil servants and agenda-pushers.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
This is playing out in real time. Brexit was a bunch of hypotheticals that have, barely two months after leaving, been utterly superseded. Hypothetically, strictly hypothetically, if it were to transpire that cases had already peaked and NHS Nightingale lay empty or largely empty then that worm would turn pretty rapidly. I don’t expect that to happen - but I do think that if the Imperial model turns out to have flaws, then people will put the government will be under a heck of a lot of pressure.
Callaghan was very different to Wilson. Brown was very different to Blair. Both were thrown out by the voters at the first opportunity.
It is really only three PMs there.
OK, I take that correction. 3 that won GEs. Last one being Blair, a 1990s phenom, along with many other iconic people and things from that decade. But this is such a different world and it's about to get more different still. I think Labour should junk the past entirely and reboot. The big defeat ironically is a great opportunity to do that. We're the political equivalent of Dresden after the War. We can rebuild without worrying about, or trying to copy, what was there before. Or less luridly, we have a blank sheet of paper and we can draw exactly what we want on it. If we do it right, come the next election, when the British people say to us, "So come on then, show us your etchings", we will blow them away.
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
I think this is a valid theme for a thread
And I really do not have any answers but I cannot see freedom to do as we wish much before the late autumn
The depressing thing is that if it’s not til late autumn that we get back our freedom I fear many will be out of jobs and the state of the country will be an absolute wreck.
I know
No. We will have some restrictions until Autumn, but will not be in a lockdown phase. With shift working (2 days in the office, 3 days at home) and maintained social distancing we can get back to work. The hardest sector will be restaurants / bars / cinemas. There, it will be tough. But the rest we can start after the first phase lockdown is over. The country can build from there and being asked to maintain a bit of discipline is hardly the same as losing our freedom!!
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
By “no one” you mean Leavers. Since they are possessed by a wild pathological hatred of the EU, they would have abandoned the laws of physics if they conflicted with their beliefs.
It still applies to Covid-19, where they would prefer to put lives at risk than work with the EU.
Sadly the Spanish PM's plea for help from the EU has so far received a somewhat mixed response. Even to the point where he specifically criticised it for giving ammunition to its critics. I still hope for better things soon.
North Wales Police have been stopping people at the English border and turning them round if they cannot justify their journey. They are also policing the National Parks and car parks with the 100% support of us North Walians.
Additionally residents in the Bala area road blocked a visitor with a camper trailer until the police came and told the visitor to go home
Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.
Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.
The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.
And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
The Conservatives pay lip service to making the poor richer.
Lip service like doubling the personal allowance for income tax over the past decade, taking millions of low paid workers out of income tax completely and letting tens of millions more keep more of their own money?
No government can make the poor richer only the poor can do that. All a government can do is give them the opportunity to improve their lot. Such as opportunities to take up adult learning courses to make themselves more employable at a higher level.
Sadly from experience too many of the poor are happy to just sit on their butts and moan about all those rich people being why they are poor.
The thing I find really difficult about many of the Corbynistas (including the man himself) is the apparent lack of concern over the point made in this article.
Something I hear a lot (from nice people very often) is, "Ah, but he inspired ME". To which one can only respond, "It's not all about you, mate... if you really believe in it yourself, it's about all those less well off people who have a Conservative Government for the foreseeable future".
Labour used to be packed with pragmatists who wouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good - including some privately hard left folk with the sense to know that their view was not a majority one, and the grace to fall in behind something well short of their ideal in order to get things done.
There is massive denial of where they are at the moment. Even justin124 in the previous thread was claiming that while losing in the north Labour now held former Tory strongholds, including Battersea. I lived there many years and it was a Labour marginal for many years under Alf Dubs before becming a Tory marginal for a while in the 90s - back to Labour under Blair, etc. ie never a safe Tory seat.
Battersea as a constituency did not exist until 1983. Prior to that there were two seats - Battersea North which was safe for Labour and represented for many years by Douglas Jay - and Battersea South which was a marginal.The new seat - Battersea was only once won by Alf Dubs - in 1983. He was defeated by John Bowis in 1987 - and again much more heavily in 1992.
I've quoted the figure for you - ups and downs on both sides right up to 2019. Classic marginal.
Callaghan was very different to Wilson. Brown was very different to Blair. Both were thrown out by the voters at the first opportunity.
It is really only three PMs there.
OK, I take that correction. 3 that won GEs. Last one being Blair, a 1990s phenom, along with many other iconic people and things from that decade. But this is such a different world and it's about to get more different still. I think Labour should junk the past entirely and reboot. The big defeat ironically is a great opportunity to do that. We're the political equivalent of Dresden after the War. We can rebuild without worrying about, or trying to copy, what was there before. Or less luridly, we have a blank sheet of paper and we can draw exactly what we want on it. If we do it right, come the next election, when the British people say to us, "So come on then, show us your etchings", we will blow them away.
Dresden was, eventually, rebuilt largely as it was. Maybe Warsaw would be a better parallel?
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
You want to see a PB consensus?
Really? I mean - really?
The only consensus we have on PB is that pineapple on pizza is shit.
There are even people who don’t like my awesome puns.
Active cases: 73.880 (+3.815 net increase) Deaths:10.779 (+756) Healed: 13.030 (+646)
New cases: 5.217
Total tests done so far: 450,030 (yesterday it was 429,526)
While the overall new cases number is hopeful, it is in the context of a large reduction in tests done.
Nate Silver posed the question: does tests done include tests we are waiting for the results on? In which case, the reduction in test numbers is an issue for tomorrow's figures.
Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.
Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.
The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.
And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
The Conservatives pay lip service to making the poor richer.
Lip service like doubling the personal allowance for income tax over the past decade, taking millions of low paid workers out of income tax completely and letting tens of millions more keep more of their own money?
That was LibDem policy initially resisted by the Tories. "On 22 June 2010, the new Chancellor George Osborne, as part of the coalition deal which sought to increase the Personal Allowance to £10,000 from April 2015 as per Lib Dem policy," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_allowance
Unless I am reading it wrong Dr Jenny Harries was gently trying to forewarn the nation that the present situation could continue for some time beyond 3 months towards 6 months and beyond
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
I think that once (hopefully) the peak is reached and numbers start to come down this is going to be the major headache for the government.
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
I think this is a valid theme for a thread
And I really do not have any answers but I cannot see freedom to do as we wish much before the late autumn
The depressing thing is that if it’s not til late autumn that we get back our freedom I fear many will be out of jobs and the state of the country will be an absolute wreck.
I know
No. We will have some restrictions until Autumn, but will not be in a lockdown phase. With shift working (2 days in the office, 3 days at home) and maintained social distancing we can get back to work. The hardest sector will be restaurants / bars / cinemas. There, it will be tough. But the rest we can start after the first phase lockdown is over. The country can build from there and being asked to maintain a bit of discipline is hardly the same as losing our freedom!!
Maybe but at this stage we have no certainty, just a hope it will be this way
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
Today's "experts" are hard scientists and doctors - people who are instinctively trusted - as opposed to faceless bureaucrats, civil servants and agenda-pushers.
Two things.
People who are UK nationalists chose to believe one set of experts. People who are Euro nationalists chose to believe another set.
Ultimately, your views on everything in the EU debate revolve around whether you are a Euro nationalist or an UK one. And most people decide that first and then go from there.
Also, economists are very good at predicting the last crisis.
So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?
But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005. These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
When did the Tories last win Battersea by more than 9000 votes? When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
My point related specifically to Batterea and Putney . You really are as thick as pigshit when it comes to psephology. The more you say the more you highlight your ignorance. Battersea and Putney 'trending to Labour' indeed!
Oh dear we have rattled your cage haven't we. Clearly you don't know that part of london where I lived for 25 years. Still waiting for the answer to my question. You dare 'nt quote the facts for either seat dare you. Battersea has long been a marginal and has swung between the parties so much it regularly features on election programmes. Putney less so but now once again a Labour marginal. Rmeind us while you're wallowing in my 'pigshit' how many Scottish Labour MPs held on in December thanks to your famed incumbency bonus.
I'll help you with Battersea:
1983 Labour maj 3276; 1987 Con maj 857 1992 Con maj 4840 1997 Lab 5360; 2001 Lab 5053; 2005 Lab maj 163 2010 Con maj; 5957 2015 Con maj 7938; 2017 Lab maj 2416 2019 Lab maj 5668.
Even now hardly the safest seat and it has never been safe Tory either. It's a swing seat. In 2019 despite doing relatively well in London the only gain was Putney and they lost Kensington. you emphasise 'gentrification' as favouring the Tories whilst forgetting the demographic trend to ethnic minorities which continues to work the other way all over much of inner London.
The country as a whole swung to Labour in the period 1983 - 1992 with the Tory majority falling from 144 to 21. Over the same period Battersea went from having a Labour majority of 3276 to a Tory majority of 4840. That is hardly evidence of a seat 'trending Labour'. The constituency was moving towards the Tories when the country as a whole was swinging against them. The same was true of Putney - and both seats were offered by commentators as clear evidence of 'gentrification' the likely effect of which was to make them Tory other than in years of Labour landslide such as 1997 and 2001. That analysis held up up to 2015 - but post 2017 has ceased to do so.
North Wales Police have been stopping people at the English border and turning them round if they cannot justify their journey. They are also policing the National Parks and car parks with the 100% support of us North Walians.
Additionally residents in the Bala area road blocked a visitor with a camper trailer until the police came and told the visitor to go home
That visitor came from Sheffield. They had probably already been moved on from the Peak District by Derbyshire police.
Boyd added: “The middle of a crisis may not be the best time to suggest why we should learn lessons … But many people are more likely to listen now. Certainly, nothing should distract us from getting ahead of Covid-19. My concern is that we should come out of this much wiser.”
Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.
Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.
The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.
And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
The Conservatives pay lip service to making the poor richer.
Lip service like doubling the personal allowance for income tax over the past decade, taking millions of low paid workers out of income tax completely and letting tens of millions more keep more of their own money?
That was LibDem policy initially resisted by the Tories. "On 22 June 2010, the new Chancellor George Osborne, as part of the coalition deal which sought to increase the Personal Allowance to £10,000 from April 2015 as per Lib Dem policy," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_allowance
What does it matter whose idea it originally was, or whether it was initially resisted? Was it done, and by whom?
As has long been noted the LDs cannot disavow the bad things done in the Coalition years if they seek to take credit for the good things. The Tories equally shouldn't get away with claiming sole credit for the good things done at those times, but they cannot lose credit for it either.
Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.
Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.
The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.
And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
The Conservatives pay lip service to making the poor richer.
Lip service like doubling the personal allowance for income tax over the past decade, taking millions of low paid workers out of income tax completely and letting tens of millions more keep more of their own money?
That was LibDem policy initially resisted by the Tories. "On 22 June 2010, the new Chancellor George Osborne, as part of the coalition deal which sought to increase the Personal Allowance to £10,000 from April 2015 as per Lib Dem policy," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_allowance
What does it matter whose idea it originally was, or whether it was initially resisted? Was it done, and by whom?
As has long been noted the LDs cannot disavow the bad things done in the Coalition years if they seek to take credit for the good things. The Tories equally shouldn't get away with claiming sole credit for the good things done at those times, but they cannot lose credit for it either.
Note that Johnson wanted to lead off in the first budget with aligning the start of NI - over a period of time - with tax free allowance.
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
I agree it is somewhat dispiriting (but unsurprising) to all of us essentially treating the situation as house arrest for Mr Kinnock to go ahead and post that. I can’t say I’m surprised though.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, you can only leave home for a good reason, which includes buying any kind of food and drink, even just a packet of crisps or a bottle of beer.
There is no 'travel ban' per se, it's a 'leaving home ban', but one you can break very easily, e.g., 'I'm going out for exercise'.
You could probably argue this was illegal as the purpose is clearly 'birthday greetings' but they'd argue the toss and not get far.
There is a blog somewhere on the various nonsense the police have claimed to be law, and which isn't. If they don't like their powers they should go ask the government for some more. Beat people to death for driving somewhere quiet to walk or whatever.
Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.
It's a good list. He missed out:
The West Wing (especially for us lot) Southland Top Boy This Is Us When They See Us 24 (if dated now)
The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.
The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.
Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.
Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
Sharpe was a great TV show - rewatch it often. Never read the books.
The books are good, I’ve recently read the first 10 or so (in chronological order in historical terms, not the order they were published) and they’re a good read but do get a bit samey. Much like the Jack Reacher books in that respect.
I did wonder about that - there's something like 20 of them, and there's surely only so many soldier stories to tell.
After Waterloo, everything has to feel like an afterthought.
This enforced stay at home has led me to a number of authors in thrillers and spy stuff i would never have explored otherwise - I'm particularly enjoying Mick Herron's Jackson Lamb series, a refreshing antidote to the mega-political world ranging spy operas.
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
Today's "experts" are hard scientists and doctors - people who are instinctively trusted - as opposed to faceless bureaucrats, civil servants and agenda-pushers.
Two things.
People who are UK nationalists chose to believe one set of experts. People who are Euro nationalists chose to believe another set.
Ultimately, your views on everything in the EU debate revolve around whether you are a Euro nationalist or an UK one. And most people decide that first and then go from there.
Also, economists are very good at predicting the last crisis.
Exactly - Brexit was a political decision. Covid involves scientific decsions.
If you start falling into the trap of believing your political beliefs are scientific truth - go re-read "Notes on Nationalism" by Orwell.
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
I agree it is somewhat dispiriting (but unsurprising) to all of us essentially treating the situation as house arrest for Mr Kinnock to go ahead and post that. I can’t say I’m surprised though.
Lock us up, lock us up....now hold on, this how thing is going to be a marathon, not a spirit, we have to time our actions right....lock us up, lock us up, why aren't you locking us up...we said, this whole process will take many months, in fact it could be the whole year and our experts say even beyond that....lock us up, lock us up, useless government not taking action.
Ok you are locked up
One week later....
Well this is going to be too long isn't it. We never knew.
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
Really? Who do they want you to be inside?
Absolutely no idea. A white loudspeaker van that came past here about half an hour ago. It was reported in the Neighbourhood blog earlier too. I assumed it was the Council. Of course it could just be some busybody.
Can someone answer me something I have been puzzling over? Exponential models say that you will meet x (say 5) people per day. You will therefore infect a proportion of those, say 3, which (as I understand it) is the R number, every day. However, surely in most societies, you meet the same people over and over again everyday, and you can’t infect them twice. So the R number has to drop. Sure, on public transport you can infect new people, but even there over time most will become infected or immune. There is clearly a hole in my understanding somewhere!
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
Really? Who do they want you to be inside?
Have you been at the Brains again?
One thing that has particularly saddened me is that my local, just before the shutdown, got in a barrel of a particularly pleasant Brains beer. It'll probably have gone off by the time I can get back.
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
Really? Who do they want you to be inside?
Absolutely no idea. A white loudspeaker van that came past here about half an hour ago. It was reported in the Neighbourhood blog earlier too. I assumed it was the Council. Of course it could just be some busybody.
OK, so that’s an awesome pun that didn’t quite come off...
Can someone answer me something I have been puzzling over? Exponential models say that you will meet x (say 5) people per day. You will therefore infect a proportion of those, say 3, which (as I understand it) is the R number, every day. However, surely in most societies, you meet the same people over and over again everyday, and you can’t infect them twice. So the R number has to drop. Sure, on public transport you can infect new people, but even there over time most will become infected or immune. There is clearly a hole in my understanding somewhere!
I believe the R0 figure is the average you will infect total not per day
Can someone answer me something I have been puzzling over? Exponential models say that you will meet x (say 5) people per day. You will therefore infect a proportion of those, say 3, which (as I understand it) is the R number, every day. However, surely in most societies, you meet the same people over and over again everyday, and you can’t infect them twice. So the R number has to drop. Sure, on public transport you can infect new people, but even there over time most will become infected or immune. There is clearly a hole in my understanding somewhere!
I suggest watching some videos on things like SIR.
If they walked over wouldn’t it be legitimate exercise?
No! Lock them up and throw away the key as a deterrent for the rest of us.
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
Really? Who do they want you to be inside?
Absolutely no idea. A white loudspeaker van that came past here about half an hour ago. It was reported in the Neighbourhood blog earlier too. I assumed it was the Council. Of course it could just be some busybody.
OK, so that’s an awesome pun that didn’t quite come off...
Can someone answer me something I have been puzzling over? Exponential models say that you will meet x (say 5) people per day. You will therefore infect a proportion of those, say 3, which (as I understand it) is the R number, every day. However, surely in most societies, you meet the same people over and over again everyday, and you can’t infect them twice. So the R number has to drop. Sure, on public transport you can infect new people, but even there over time most will become infected or immune. There is clearly a hole in my understanding somewhere!
I think you have just invented the concept of herd immunity.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
Can someone answer me something I have been puzzling over? Exponential models say that you will meet x (say 5) people per day. You will therefore infect a proportion of those, say 3, which (as I understand it) is the R number, every day. However, surely in most societies, you meet the same people over and over again everyday, and you can’t infect them twice. So the R number has to drop. Sure, on public transport you can infect new people, but even there over time most will become infected or immune. There is clearly a hole in my understanding somewhere!
Herd immunity threshold is thought to occur at 1 - (1/R0). So with R0 of 3, then 66% of population = herd immunity...
Comments
I think one ex-Labour voter put it like this - "Labour have lost interest in the low paid labour. Their interest is in the non-labour."
It is really only three PMs there.
When did the Tories last win Putney by more than 11000 votes?
You are using language simply not justified by the evidence. Have a look at the results and show us. What were the average majorities in those seats over the last 20 years?
Now tellus the Tory majorities last December in the seats I quoted. If you dare.
Are you one of them? Thought not.....
If you misuse the term "far to the left" you leave yourself with nowhere to go when discussing something that IS far to the left - e.g the Labour 2019 manifesto.
By abusing the language like that you have rendered the 2019 manifesto - quite literally - indescribable.
I have always maintained that at the end of our 12 week isolation we will not suddenly be able to return to normal but will need several months of gradual easing
As far as financial support that will have to continue and yes, at a huge cost
But Jenrick is also vastly superior to most cabinet ministers, including Raab.
Yes, I DO want to move to Scunthorpe. That's exactly right. And I want them to move here.
Metaphorically.
What happened to kinder gentler politics
How do you relax these restrictions whilst somehow keeping some kind of social distancing arrangement in force? Do you open pubs or do they stay shut? Parks? Offices? Or are we just going to allow people to visit their families but nothing else. How do you enforce that? What can you do to stop people, mad with relief at being able to go out, mixing with large groups of friends?
Believe me that once they say “you can leave the house” that will be it for most people. They won’t give two stuffs about the “but please still be careful” tacked on afterwards.
And I really do not have any answers but I cannot see freedom to do as we wish much before the late autumn
Less pollution from cars and airplanes and those hideous floating hotels.
A reminder that we are all susceptible equally. (Speaking of which in passing I wonder whether Charles is using alternative medicine to treat his case. Just asking.)
But seriously, we're not saying that because I fluked some money in the City I can't be a hard left social democrat, are we?
Because that would be rather oppressive.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
https://twitter.com/swpolice/status/1244224030644883456?s=20
Greedy gits are not happy being awash with money , they don't even want to pay tax on it.
Battersea has long been a marginal and has swung between the parties so much it regularly features on election programmes. Putney less so but now once again a Labour marginal. Rmeind us while you're wallowing in my 'pigshit' how many Scottish Labour MPs held on in December thanks to your famed incumbency bonus.
I'll help you with Battersea:
1983 Labour maj 3276; 1987 Con maj 857 1992 Con maj 4840
1997 Lab 5360; 2001 Lab 5053; 2005 Lab maj 163 2010 Con maj; 5957
2015 Con maj 7938; 2017 Lab maj 2416 2019 Lab maj 5668.
Even now hardly the safest seat and it has never been safe Tory either. It's a swing seat. In 2019 despite doing relatively well in London the only gain was Putney and they lost Kensington. you emphasise 'gentrification' as favouring the Tories whilst forgetting the demographic trend to ethnic minorities which continues to work the other way all over much of inner London.
It still applies to Covid-19, where they would prefer to put lives at risk than work with the EU.
The predictions by the 'experts' wrt Brexit were often shown to be baloney. Huge fall in house prices due to just the vote ! Half a million unemployed !
When your predictions don't happen, you lose credibility.
Ask King Cnut.
'Those chalk lines on the pavement to keep your customers safe are criminal damage. Have a Fixed Penalty.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO9-S5PhxUs
TBF, the Met have disowned it.
Active cases: 73.880 (+3.815 net increase)
Deaths:10.779 (+756)
Healed: 13.030 (+646)
New cases: 5.217
Total tests done so far: 450,030 (yesterday it was 429,526)
Additionally residents in the Bala area road blocked a visitor with a camper trailer until the police came and told the visitor to go home
Sadly from experience too many of the poor are happy to just sit on their butts and moan about all those rich people being why they are poor.
Really? I mean - really?
There are even people who don’t like my awesome puns.
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/uk-news/police-stop-driver-making-224-mile-trip-to-buy-ebay-item-with-wife-in-the-boot/
Nate Silver posed the question: does tests done include tests we are waiting for the results on? In which case, the reduction in test numbers is an issue for tomorrow's figures.
"On 22 June 2010, the new Chancellor George Osborne, as part of the coalition deal which sought to increase the Personal Allowance to £10,000 from April 2015 as per Lib Dem policy,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_allowance
We have had the Vale of Glamorgan Council loudspeaker van around here telling us to all to get inside. We live in a village! The van has already done its rounds in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major apparantly.
People who are UK nationalists chose to believe one set of experts.
People who are Euro nationalists chose to believe another set.
Ultimately, your views on everything in the EU debate revolve around whether you are a Euro nationalist or an UK one. And most people decide that first and then go from there.
Also, economists are very good at predicting the last crisis.
OK, we can stick to the banter. It's enjoyable.
I'm here and always available.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/29/uk-strategy-to-address-pandemic-threat-not-properly-implemented
“...getting sufficient resource just to write a decent biosecurity strategy was tough. Getting resource to properly underpin implementation of what it said was impossible.”
Boyd added: “The middle of a crisis may not be the best time to suggest why we should learn lessons … But many people are more likely to listen now. Certainly, nothing should distract us from getting ahead of Covid-19. My concern is that we should come out of this much wiser.”
Note this is not a criticism of current policy.
As has long been noted the LDs cannot disavow the bad things done in the Coalition years if they seek to take credit for the good things. The Tories equally shouldn't get away with claiming sole credit for the good things done at those times, but they cannot lose credit for it either.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, you can only leave home for a good reason, which includes buying any kind of food and drink, even just a packet of crisps or a bottle of beer.
There is no 'travel ban' per se, it's a 'leaving home ban', but one you can break very easily, e.g., 'I'm going out for exercise'.
You could probably argue this was illegal as the purpose is clearly 'birthday greetings' but they'd argue the toss and not get far.
There is a blog somewhere on the various nonsense the police have claimed to be law, and which isn't. If they don't like their powers they should go ask the government for some more. Beat people to death for driving somewhere quiet to walk or whatever.
None are available up to April 18 and it keeps telling me to try another slot.. when there aren't any...
Customer service does not accept calls just short message. and then discontinued.
This enforced stay at home has led me to a number of authors in thrillers and spy stuff i would never have explored otherwise - I'm particularly enjoying Mick Herron's Jackson Lamb series, a refreshing antidote to the mega-political world ranging spy operas.
Exactly - Brexit was a political decision. Covid involves scientific decsions.
If you start falling into the trap of believing your political beliefs are scientific truth - go re-read "Notes on Nationalism" by Orwell.
Lock us up, lock us up....now hold on, this how thing is going to be a marathon, not a spirit, we have to time our actions right....lock us up, lock us up, why aren't you locking us up...we said, this whole process will take many months, in fact it could be the whole year and our experts say even beyond that....lock us up, lock us up, useless government not taking action.
Ok you are locked up
One week later....
Well this is going to be too long isn't it. We never knew.
One thing that has particularly saddened me is that my local, just before the shutdown, got in a barrel of a particularly pleasant Brains beer.
It'll probably have gone off by the time I can get back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKMHhm2Zbkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSLFudKBnBI
Two degrees of separation with this one.
So with R0 of 3, then 66% of population = herd immunity...
https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a-epidemiology/epidemic-theory