Wales have been even shitter than the UK government on this. Their testing record is beyond shit and no real forward motion on increasing the amount or capacity. And it isn't as if they don't have a massive hotspot close to the border with England.
Comparisons between IDS and Boris are absurd. Having recently won an 80 seat majority, baring some black swan, Boris has the job for the next four years.
We will have leftwing economics for years to come, we might as well have a leftwing government. The Tories will be associated with, and tained by, this pandemic.
If he is, I doubt it would bother me too much. I only voted for Boris because of Brexit and would have voted for Corbyn if he were a Brexiteer and Boris were threatening a 2nd referendum
But I dont think Starmer can win over the public, he is too dull.
I think you're probably right. Unless the nation's still reeling from this virus come the next election, which is perfectly possible. In that case I think Starmer might win.
I'm not sure about Max Hasting's comparison with 1945 but Clement Attlee was also dour. He faced off against the ultimate charismatic leader and won a landslide.
Yes. He's technically correct that the advice wasn't withdrawn until 13th March, so he's chosen the 12th March to make his lawyerly point. It's effective enough, to be sure, and the journalists have lapped it up.
twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1260535569781833728
Journalists love it when people do the work for them. As we have found throughout this pandemic, checking facts, not so much e.g. Delboy Trotter list, they lapped that up as well.
Sensible tactics from Labour, a step up from Uncle Thickie, Maureen from Margate has written to me again with an anecdote.
Comparisons between IDS and Boris are absurd. Having recently won an 80 seat majority, baring some black swan, Boris has the job for the next four years.
We will have leftwing economics for years to come, we might as well have a leftwing government. The Tories will be associated with, and tained by, this pandemic.
If he is, I doubt it would bother me too much. I only voted for Boris because of Brexit and would have voted for Corbyn if he were a Brexiteer and Boris were threatening a 2nd referendum
But I dont think Starmer can win over the public, he is too dull.
I think you're probably right. Unless the nation's still reeling from this virus come the next election, which is perfectly possible. In that case I think Starmer might win.
I'm not sure about Max Hasting's comparison with 1945 but Clement Attlee was also dour. He faced off against the ultimate charismatic leader and won a landslide.
Popular culture was very different in 1945. We live in Reality tv world now and those viewers want charisma or passion not wallflowers.
What valid answer could there be to questions like "what caused the other 10,000 excess deaths"?
All nations with this epidemic are seeing excess deaths beyond confirmed cases. Starmer knows that, he is clever at asking an unanswerable question but what answer would there be?
Well. The simple answer would have been "I can't explain because they are unexplained!" Very sad, we are investigating...etc.
Trouble is Boris didn't think of that and reached into his waffle holster.
I love it when people put two words together in an usual combination, the best ones strike me as great names for band. Waffle holster is definitely up there.
My missus is good at coining them, often food related - ‘Concentrated Mince’ is my personal favourite.
This is wildly off topic but I just wanted to doff my cap to your pleasant phraseology!
By the way, I'm pretty relaxed about Boris as PM. I quite like him to be honest! And he has done what all great leaders should do: pitched his tent on the Opposition lawn. He nationalised the railways (well okay kind-of), ripped apart Thatcher's view of society, championed the NHS and brought-in the kind of socialist economics that would have led to a MSM riot had Corbyn dared the same.
It's the headbangers and deadweights around Boris I worry about more.
(p.s. I'm not convinced Boris really believes in Brexit either)
Comparisons between IDS and Boris are absurd. Having recently won an 80 seat majority, baring some black swan, Boris has the job for the next four years.
Have you been watching the news lately?
Yup. Sadly. What’s your point? How is Boris in a comparable position to IDS, the LoO that failed to convince his own party to give him a shot at an election.
We will have leftwing economics for years to come, we might as well have a leftwing government. The Tories will be associated with, and tained by, this pandemic.
If he is, I doubt it would bother me too much. I only voted for Boris because of Brexit and would have voted for Corbyn if he were a Brexiteer and Boris were threatening a 2nd referendum
But I dont think Starmer can win over the public, he is too dull.
I think you're probably right. Unless the nation's still reeling from this virus come the next election, which is perfectly possible. In that case I think Starmer might win.
I'm not sure about Max Hasting's comparison with 1945 but Clement Attlee was also dour. He faced off against the ultimate charismatic leader and won a landslide.
Attlee was part of the wartime coalition, though.
It would be like a general election between Johnson and one of his more effective, dour Cabinet ministers who stood on a more good-times future election platform.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
What it does do is allow to set a narrative. The narrative was Uncle Thickie, was well a thickie and bloody useless. Week after week the media would be howling he missed an open goal yet again, or he is banging on about stuff nobody gives a crap about.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
I thought it was fairly tame stuff, clearly Starmer doesn't do emotion. I remember Hague doing well against Blair at PMQ's a fat lot of good it did.
A Johnson fanbois desperately trying to find crumbs of comfort? Hague did do comparatively well against Blair because Hague had a command of detail that was equal to Blair, and occasionally Hague managed to score a point or two. Two outings of Starmer v Bozo and Johnson has been made to look the incompetent fool that he is. I have never seen a PM so completely out of his/her depth at PMQs in all my years following politics.
What valid answer could there be to questions like "what caused the other 10,000 excess deaths"?
All nations with this epidemic are seeing excess deaths beyond confirmed cases. Starmer knows that, he is clever at asking an unanswerable question but what answer would there be?
Well. The simple answer would have been "I can't explain because they are unexplained!" Very sad, we are investigating...etc.
Trouble is Boris didn't think of that and reached into his waffle holster.
I love it when people put two words together in an usual combination, the best ones strike me as great names for band. Waffle holster is definitely up there.
My missus is good at coining them, often food related - ‘Concentrated Mince’ is my personal favourite.
This is wildly off topic but I just wanted to doff my cap to your pleasant phraseology!
Me too. I'm nicking 'waffle holster.' It's a belter
The Tories will have been in for 14 years come 2024. Labour lasted 1997 - 2010, that's 13 and the Tories before that 1979 - 1997, 18 years. A change of Gov't is about "due", potentially with confidence and supply from the SNP.
Comparisons between IDS and Boris are absurd. Having recently won an 80 seat majority, baring some black swan, Boris has the job for the next four years.
Have you been watching the news lately?
Yup. Sadly. What’s your point? How is Boris in a comparable position to IDS, the LoO that failed to convince his own party to give him a shot at an election.
Genomics England, in partnership with the GenOMICC consortium, is working with the NHS to deliver whole genome sequencing of up to 20,000 people who have been severely affected by COVID-19 – requiring intensive care – and 15,000 people who had mild symptoms.
It's like saying there's never cause and effect. Obvs sometimes 'connections' are made that are false, and we all know about conspiracists finding Tholian webs where none exist. But there is actually such a thing as cause and effect y'know
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
I am afraid you are wrong. "Normal" people, many of whom are centrist floating voters watch the news. If the political analysts show that Johnson is hopeless in debate the message will be underlined that he is incompetent. It also helps to fire the troops or demoralise them in the chamber and the activists that do follow it will also be positively or negatively affected. Blair did this very effectively and forensically against John Major. Thatcher did it against Callahan (though it wasn't televised then). Anyone who thinks PMQs don't matter are just trying to convince themselves, or they don't really understand politics.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
Hague routinely beat Blair at PMQs. Didn't move the dial at all.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
Hague routinely beat Blair at PMQs. Didn't move the dial at all.
Is that true? It is a long time ago but iirc Hague had a good run but Blair developed the technique of laughing at Hague's jokes and dismissing him as a joker. I think Hague said something along those lines too. Humour is a good tool used sparingly, as Kinnock did against Thatcher, but not all the time.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
I detested Tony Blair, but I wouldn't say he was poor on detail, quite the reverse. No Margaret Thatcher, but certainly not poor in that department from my recollection. As for him losing PMQs, Mr Thompson is talking complete nonsense even by his standard.
I wonder if the govt will go fully down the alternative truths route to deal with Starmer. I doubt it, the UK is not the US but who knows nowadays.
Think they've got Boris bang to rights here. Skittled and snookered. He would do well to fess up
In fact I reckon that should be his policy for the next few months. Just admit everything is a shambles and millions are dying, because it is a plague.
Re your earlier point about Mr Johnson staying on to see Brexit done, I was wondering, why should he bother? He'd find it that much more difficult now. And he's asembled a cabinet chosen for their soundness on Brexit. Not to mention famously sitting on the fence on a crucial moment - one article for one side and the other for the other.
It's like saying there's never cause and effect. Obvs sometimes 'connections' are made that are false, and we all know about conspiracists finding Tholian webs where none exist. But there is actually such a thing as cause and effect y'know
The bigger issue is that we have so few data points. And given what's going on, I think the uncertainty is particularly high.
I would suggest that simply doing a very good job at PMQs won't be enough on its own for Starmer to become PM. I think his biggest job is to work out how he's going to react to the big decisions that are coming up. Simply opposing for opposition's sake won't be a good approach.
No one, but no one, is preparing right now for World Trade Organisation terms of trade with Europe. The merits and demerits of a clean break Brexit are so far down the list of business concerns that they barely register.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
I am afraid you are wrong. "Normal" people, many of whom are centrist floating voters watch the news. If the political analysts show that Johnson is hopeless in debate the message will be underlined that he is incompetent. It also helps to fire the troops or demoralise them in the chamber and the activists that do follow it will also be positively or negatively affected. Blair did this very effectively and forensically against John Major. Thatcher did it against Callahan (though it wasn't televised then). Anyone who thinks PMQs don't matter are just trying to convince themselves, or they don't really understand politics.
Re your last line I have no need to convince myself of anything as I didn't vote for Boris and can't think of a time that I would.
Now you may be right and think I don't understand politics but bearing in mind you have no idea who I am that's a strange assumption to make.
PMQs is great news for the tiny % of nerds who give a toss but its an increasingly irrelevant way to gauge the political barometer.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
The actual paragraph which Starmer is cleverly twisting both as regards content and date was this, issued on the 25th Feb:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information and will be updated shortly.
(My emphasis).
And a recent study suggests community transmission In the UK began on or about 29 January. Lessons have to be learned about early reactions to the next C19 spike in the first country it appears in.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Cameron was fairly dismissive of Corbyn generally in his autobiography On The Record. In particular, he thought Corbyn's idea of reading questions from Members of the Public made life very easy the PM. Corbyn gave it up afte a while but I don't think he ever presented Cameron with much difficulty.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
Hague routinely beat Blair at PMQs. Didn't move the dial at all.
Is that true? It is a long time ago but iirc Hague had a good run but Blair developed the technique of laughing at Hague's jokes and dismissing him as a joker. I think Hague said something along those lines too. Humour is a good tool used sparingly, as Kinnock did against Thatcher, but not all the time.
No it is complete nonsense. I can only assume Mr Thompson isn't old enough to remember. I was a card carrying Conservative Party member in those days and even I wouldn't pretend William Hague (whom I thought very good) won all or even most PMQs. I would call it a score draw across most matches. It was a futile ray of hope at a time when the Tory Party was very much on the ropes, which is probably why some have false recall over it.
Lunatics like Dawn Butler need to be kept off the air. One way that Starmer can get hold of his party again is (a) un-ban Alastair Campbell (b) hire Alastair Campbell (c) let Campbell do what he does best.
We never heard a peep from lunatic MPs in the Blair years.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Cameron was fairly dismissive of Corbyn generally in his autobiography On The Record. In particular, he thought Corbyn's idea of reading questions from Members of the Public made life very easy the PM. Corbyn gave it up afte a while but I don't think he ever presented Cameron with much difficulty.
It is easy because when you do something like that it is mostly anecdotal. You can then just reply with some stat that shows things aren't as bad as Maureen from Margate complaints about the number of pigeons in her garden says it is.
Even it's your story vs some factoid. Jezza says but are you disrespecting Maureen, and you say no, but overall the facts show this problem isn't as described by her story.
Where Starmer has got Boris is twisting some of the government own guidelines. That is much harder proposition.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
Hague routinely beat Blair at PMQs. Didn't move the dial at all.
Is that true? It is a long time ago but iirc Hague had a good run but Blair developed the technique of laughing at Hague's jokes and dismissing him as a joker. I think Hague said something along those lines too. Humour is a good tool used sparingly, as Kinnock did against Thatcher, but not all the time.
No it is complete nonsense. I can only assume Mr Thompson isn't old enough to remember. I was a card carrying Conservative Party member in those days and even I wouldn't pretend William Hague (whom I thought very good) won all or even most PMQs. I would call it a score draw across most matches. It was a futile ray of hope at a time when the Tory Party was very much on the ropes, which is probably why some have false recall over it.
We will have leftwing economics for years to come, we might as well have a leftwing government. The Tories will be associated with, and tained by, this pandemic.
If he is, I doubt it would bother me too much. I only voted for Boris because of Brexit and would have voted for Corbyn if he were a Brexiteer and Boris were threatening a 2nd referendum
But I dont think Starmer can win over the public, he is too dull.
A cross between IDS quiet man & Gordon Brown without his charisma.
Countering Starmer is difficult? Nah. Look at all these rich veins of electoral material:
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
I'm loving the complacency from the PB Tories.
Out of interest why do you think it's so hilarious to call Starmer Sir Keith?
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
Starmer just got Boris to lie. This will hurt.
Hang on, did he lie or did he make a mistake?
I didn't watch so I don't know but its entirely possible he didn't willfully lie
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
Hague routinely beat Blair at PMQs. Didn't move the dial at all.
Is that true? It is a long time ago but iirc Hague had a good run but Blair developed the technique of laughing at Hague's jokes and dismissing him as a joker. I think Hague said something along those lines too. Humour is a good tool used sparingly, as Kinnock did against Thatcher, but not all the time.
No it is complete nonsense. I can only assume Mr Thompson isn't old enough to remember. I was a card carrying Conservative Party member in those days and even I wouldn't pretend William Hague (whom I thought very good) won all or even most PMQs. I would call it a score draw across most matches. It was a futile ray of hope at a time when the Tory Party was very much on the ropes, which is probably why some have false recall over it.
I never claimed he won all or even most PMQs, but he won enough for it to be a regular occurrence without it moving the seat numbers at all.
I don't think Starmer is being devious in his quote from the now withdrawn guidance to care homes. The guidance makes it clear in several places that there was nothing to worry about, nor was there a need to take pre-emptive measures. That may or may not have been appropriate guidance at the time, but his question about whether it was appropriate is a reasonable one.
Personally, I think the bigger problem is with the guidance that replaced this one after the 13 March. It is totally inadequate.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
Starmer just got Boris to lie. This will hurt.
Hang on, did he lie or did he make a mistake?
I didn't watch so I don't know but its entirely possible he didn't willfully lie
Johnson doesn't know the difference. He has lied his way to the top, and he will lie on his way back down. Why stop the habits of a lifetime?
Countering Starmer is difficult? Nah. Look at all these rich veins of electoral material:
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
I'm loving the complacency from the PB Tories.
Out of interest why do you think it's so hilarious to call Starmer Sir Keith?
We've had 4 headers in the past couple of days about how fautless Keir is and how he will stride to election victory. Yet the reality is he's a mostly competent fella with an offputting voice who messed up Labour's Brexit plan. Long may the centre left ignore the polls and worship at his alter but deep down they probably know they would rather have Sunak than Starmer in 2024 if it comes to it.
The Gov't should have been issuing duty of care advice to care homes (And the money to implement where needed)
i) Where possible care staff live in the care home. ii) Severely limit staff hopping from one home to the next. iii) Staff as far as possible either use their own, or where they are reliant on public transport use the same transport to and from the care home (Special buses/minibuses laid on to pick and drop off staff).
Basically as far as possible "bubble" the staff and residents..
All the above measures aren't easy or always possible but they could have been put in place more than they are now.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
Starmer just got Boris to lie. This will hurt.
Hang on, did he lie or did he make a mistake?
I didn't watch so I don't know but its entirely possible he didn't willfully lie
He told an untruth. That is to say, he lied
If that's what happened I'm prepared to believe you but its possible he got a date wrong which isn't lying.
Genomics England, in partnership with the GenOMICC consortium, is working with the NHS to deliver whole genome sequencing of up to 20,000 people who have been severely affected by COVID-19 – requiring intensive care – and 15,000 people who had mild symptoms.
One of the biggest headaches for Boris is that by all accounts this virus and its effects are going to be with us long term. No one denies that. It's also highly complex. It requires forensic attention to detail and someone at the helm who is prepared to put in ultra long hours.
Boris is fantastic on broad-brush bonhomie.
And pretty rubbish on the kind of detail required for going forward. He'll need to find a way of doing an Andrew Neil on PMQ's i.e. avoiding them.
I also imagine his time preparing for PMQs is limited as he has other things to do. One of the best weapons a PM has at PMQs is to make a joke at the LOTO expense. He can hardly do that at the moment. He just needs to stand there each week, take a beating, answer the questions as best as he can and get back to trying to limit the damage that Covid 19 is doing.
Jokes are a weapon for the LotO; the Prime Minister has three weapons: 1) the folder of official answers 2) the ability to deflect, concede or refer (see answer to the SNP's furlough case) 3) the last word
Countering Starmer is difficult? Nah. Look at all these rich veins of electoral material:
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
I'm loving the complacency from the PB Tories.
Out of interest why do you think it's so hilarious to call Starmer Sir Keith?
I’d always assumed that was autocorrect. If not, then it is probably the same level of humour that thought calling Osborn “Gideon” was funny.
The Gov't should have been issuing duty of care advice to care homes (And the money to implement where needed)
i) Where possible care staff live in the care home. ii) Severely limit staff hopping from one home to the next. iii) Staff as far as possible either use their own, or where they are reliant on public transport use the same transport to and from the care home (Special buses/minibuses laid on to pick and drop off staff).
Basically as far as possible "bubble" the staff and residents..
All the above measures aren't easy or always possible but they could have been put in place more than they are now.
i) Nice where possible, but greatly implausible for vast majority of homes and staff. Should mothers with young children (a high proportion of care home staff are mothers) abandon their children for months? ii) Agreed 100% - not just between homes but within units within a home. iii) Actually this could be counter-productive.
I believe the advice is actually for staff within a home to mingle as little as possible. If the staff are all in the same vehicle then you end up with if one of them is ill then they can pass it to all of their colleagues.
I don't think Starmer is being devious in his quote from the now withdrawn guidance to care homes. The guidance makes it clear in several places that there was nothing to worry about, nor was there a need to take pre-emptive measures. That may or may not have been appropriate guidance at the time, but his question about whether it was appropriate is a reasonable one.
Personally, I think the bigger problem is with the guidance that replaced this one after the 13 March. It is totally inadequate.
Countering Starmer is difficult? Nah. Look at all these rich veins of electoral material:
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
I'm loving the complacency from the PB Tories.
Out of interest why do you think it's so hilarious to call Starmer Sir Keith?
It isn't complacency, it is desperation. They are waking up to the slow realisation that Labour, for all its faults and failings of the last few years, now have a very competent leader. They, on the other hand (I can no longer say "we" when referring to the party of which I was once an activist), are beginning to realise the person they thought of as a lovable rogue is actually a political imbecile who is only good against very weak opponents and who is going to be torn apart week in week out. It will take the Conservative Party a generation to recover from the mess that the zealots have got it into. And there are no Starmer equivalents waiting in the wings for them, which is a tragedy for the country.
Regarding PMQs, this is not about a General Election in 2024. If the last GE 6 months ago feels like a lifetime ago in a different era then 2024 feels like forever away. People are not going to remember what any of the participants say today.
This is about competence. Major lost the 1997 election on Black Wednesday when the economic competence perception that carried them through the election months earlier was swept away by events and their inept handling of them. Same thing here - if Starmer can hang the albatross of incompetence around the government over such a critical issue then it is finished.You don't get the benefit of the doubt when your waffling bumbling promote people based on fealty not talent leads to tens of thousands of excess deaths and an economic depression.
"You say this isn't a disaster and if it is isn't your fault. You said x and then y happened". "We never said x". Yes you did here is the formal advice". Errr. Followed soon by "I would like to clear up with the house that I did say x". "Do you now accept that x meant that all these people are dead who didn't need to be" etc etc
Even Boris cheerleader Staines thought they had Boris bang to rights, but perhaps not.
"UPDATE:Turns out there is wriggle room, Keir Starmer didn’t read the small print. Which is a basic task for a lawyer:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information and will be updated shortly."
We will have leftwing economics for years to come, we might as well have a leftwing government. The Tories will be associated with, and tained by, this pandemic.
If he is, I doubt it would bother me too much. I only voted for Boris because of Brexit and would have voted for Corbyn if he were a Brexiteer and Boris were threatening a 2nd referendum
But I dont think Starmer can win over the public, he is too dull.
A cross between IDS quiet man & Gordon Brown without his charisma.
We're back to Attlee again! Although of course Attlee had been an inner City Mayor and in real politics for over twenty years.
Even Boris cheerleader Staines thought they had Boris bang to rights, but perhaps not.
"UPDATE:Turns out there is wriggle room, Keir Starmer didn’t read the small print. Which is a basic task for a lawyer:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information and will be updated shortly."
Even Boris cheerleader Staines thought they had Boris bang to rights, but perhaps not.
"UPDATE:Turns out there is wriggle room, Keir Starmer didn’t read the small print. Which is a basic task for a lawyer:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information and will be updated shortly."
I am not overtly concerned about continuity Corbyn Sir Keith the Brexit blocking lawyer.
He may have his 15 mins in the sun as the tail of Covid works its way round the u-bend but when the worst is over we will need optimism and fresh thinking around the economy.
Not blah blah from a "forensic" bore endlessly waffling about the latest woke fad, social justice and faux "consensus".
Methinks you are protesting too much, Starmer is going to look good in one to ones with bumbling Doris and the Tories know it. Look how the leadership favourable have shifted after just a couple of encounters. We are going to need a damn site more than than Doris's usually waffly optimism once this is over.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Tony Blair
Hmmm ... don't think that one works. Tony was poor on detail but he held his own & certainly against John Major whose oratory was pretty poor. Blair was pretty equal to Hague and Howard. As for IDS ... oh dear. Cameron took down Blair for all time at PMQs with one session. And whatever you think of Cameron, it was one of the defining moments of British politics.
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
Hague routinely beat Blair at PMQs. Didn't move the dial at all.
Is that true? It is a long time ago but iirc Hague had a good run but Blair developed the technique of laughing at Hague's jokes and dismissing him as a joker. I think Hague said something along those lines too. Humour is a good tool used sparingly, as Kinnock did against Thatcher, but not all the time.
No it is complete nonsense. I can only assume Mr Thompson isn't old enough to remember. I was a card carrying Conservative Party member in those days and even I wouldn't pretend William Hague (whom I thought very good) won all or even most PMQs. I would call it a score draw across most matches. It was a futile ray of hope at a time when the Tory Party was very much on the ropes, which is probably why some have false recall over it.
Blair was both an actual lawyer and an amateur actor, skills that set you in good stead for PMQs
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
Starmer just got Boris to lie. This will hurt.
Hang on, did he lie or did he make a mistake?
I didn't watch so I don't know but its entirely possible he didn't willfully lie
He told an untruth. That is to say, he lied
If that's what happened I'm prepared to believe you but its possible he got a date wrong which isn't lying.
I'm sure you appreciate the difference
The difference is he's either morally suspect or incompetent? Given his past history consists of lying to his boss, lying to his readers, lying to his wives, lying to his political colleagues... Then it's easy to see how people might jump to conclusions.
The PM is on a very sticky wicket. For all their deficiencies international comparisons are not flattering at the moment. Care Homes have proved to be a serious weak spot. The opposition to quarantine by the likes of Grant Shapps was and is bewildering. The consequences of having so many of our goods manufactured overseas have come home to bite in the supply of PPE, masks and indeed in testing. The NHS did well in increasing capacity quickly but it remains bureaucratic and top heavy with weak management. The longer this goes on the more evident it will be. The government has sought to rely on the advice of experts but that has proved problematic in several areas, the most recent of which is the development of the app where mistakes have been made and time lost. The government is trying to move the story on in terms of the economy without really having sufficient capacity to test quickly or an app that will facilitate tracing. This is unlikely to end well.
Quite frankly only an incompetent of Corbyn's level could fail to win PMQs in such a situation. The main problem for the LOTO is where do you start? How do you bring together a coherent narrative? Starmer is more than capable of doing that.
Comparisons between IDS and Boris are absurd. Having recently won an 80 seat majority, baring some black swan, Boris has the job for the next four years.
Comparisons between Starmer and IDS would be more appropriate as Labour under Starmer are polling no higher than the Tories were after IDS was elected
The infamous "PB Tories" would be far better off admitting that Boris lost this one, and needs to up his game, than waste hours of our shortened lives looking for tiny small print that means his gaffe wasn't quite so bad. Ludicrous
The overwhelming opinion of "PB Tories" was that Starmer won this week. I said that, Big_G said that and so did many others.
I don't think the PM really can win right now when its such a sombre time.
"Britons were pictured packed like sardines on trains and buses today and warned that social distancing was 'next to impossible' as millions across the country went back to work for the first time after Boris Johnson eased the lockdown. .......................................................................................................................................... Passengers, the majority not wearing masks, were nose-to-nose on the Victoria Line in London this morning after services were suspended when a customer fell ill on a rush hour train. 'Social distancing during the peak was a joke. During the suspension our carriages were heaving - it will get worse,' said one worker, adding it was a 'complete shambles'."
Even Boris cheerleader Staines thought they had Boris bang to rights, but perhaps not.
"UPDATE:Turns out there is wriggle room, Keir Starmer didn’t read the small print. Which is a basic task for a lawyer:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information and will be updated shortly."
Yeah, but if you read the whole thing, it's clear they didn't think there was any problem at all. Blasé doesn't describe it. Now you can argue it was appropriate advice at the time, but that was exactly what Starmer's question was about.
OT, just watched last week's PMQ at long last. Johnson was hopeless and Starmer pulled him apart. If that happens every week and it gets coverage most people are going to wake up to the fact that it might not be a good idea to have a low on detail game show host as a PM. The Tories are going to find it difficult to undermine Starmer IMO, unless they find something that sticks that is currently unknown. A lot of PB Johnson fanbois on here have tried to suggest he is boring, which is hardly going to shift the needle much, even if it were true. One on here yesterday tried to suggest that "being forensic" was a bad thing. Maybe he ought to look at the forensic ability of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Both would have run rings around The Clown. Johnson's advisors are going to have to do a lot better, and Johnson himself would be well advised to start looking at using some heavyweights to support him rather than surrounding himself with hopeless sycophants.
As always, one of Boris' greatest assets is his critics' unswerving dedication to underestimating him...
You are just too tribally blind to see what most other people can see. Starmer is going to do this to Johnson week in week out for the next 4 years.
OT, just watched last week's PMQ at long last. Johnson was hopeless and Starmer pulled him apart. If that happens every week and it gets coverage most people are going to wake up to the fact that it might not be a good idea to have a low on detail game show host as a PM. The Tories are going to find it difficult to undermine Starmer IMO, unless they find something that sticks that is currently unknown. A lot of PB Johnson fanbois on here have tried to suggest he is boring, which is hardly going to shift the needle much, even if it were true. One on here yesterday tried to suggest that "being forensic" was a bad thing. Maybe he ought to look at the forensic ability of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Both would have run rings around The Clown. Johnson's advisors are going to have to do a lot better, and Johnson himself would be well advised to start looking at using some heavyweights to support him rather than surrounding himself with hopeless sycophants.
As always, one of Boris' greatest assets is his critics' unswerving dedication to underestimating him...
You are just too tribally blind to see what most other people can see. Starmer is going to do this to Johnson week in week out for the next 4 years.
Coronavirus won't last 4 years. More jovial times will return.
Johnson is going to have to find a way of abolishing PMQs. He just cannot handle the relentless scrutiny that Starmer brings to it.
Starmer needs to find a way of getting normal people to watch it!
Normal people aren't interested, PMQs is a total irrelevance in terms of political popularity, as much as the anoraks wish it wasn't
Nagging voice inside me says that's wishful thinking.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
Back when I was interested I remember Hague duffing Blair up and Corbyn doing very well too early on.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
Decrepiter is right. Hague didn't "defeat" Blair he just made him look mildly uncomfortable, at times, with some clever witticisms and deft apercus. He never made Blair look inadequate, or flailing, or badly misinformed to the point of lying
Starmer just got Boris to lie. This will hurt.
Hang on, did he lie or did he make a mistake?
I didn't watch so I don't know but its entirely possible he didn't willfully lie
He told an untruth. That is to say, he lied
If that's what happened I'm prepared to believe you but its possible he got a date wrong which isn't lying.
I'm sure you appreciate the difference
The difference is he's either morally suspect or incompetent? Given his past history consists of lying to his boss, lying to his readers, lying to his wives, lying to his political colleagues... Then it's easy to see how people might jump to conclusions.
Oh yes of course, but falsely accusing somebody of lying is as bad as lying itself.
Which makes my point about PMQs, it is a complete irrelevance. The labour supporters on here were euphoric an hour ago but......
The PM is on a very sticky wicket. For all their deficiencies international comparisons are not flattering at the moment. Care Homes have proved to be a serious weak spot. The opposition to quarantine by the likes of Grant Shapps was and is bewildering. The consequences of having so many of our goods manufactured overseas have come home to bite in the supply of PPE, masks and indeed in testing. The NHS did well in increasing capacity quickly but it remains bureaucratic and top heavy with weak management. The longer this goes on the more evident it will be. The government has sought to rely on the advice of experts but that has proved problematic in several areas, the most recent of which is the development of the app where mistakes have been made and time lost. The government is trying to move the story on in terms of the economy without really having sufficient capacity to test quickly or an app that will facilitate tracing. This is unlikely to end well.
Quite frankly only an incompetent of Corbyn's level could fail to win PMQs in such a situation. The main problem for the LOTO is where do you start? How do you bring together a coherent narrative? Starmer is more than capable of doing that.
So is it Grant Shapps who has been opposing quarantine ?
OT, just watched last week's PMQ at long last. Johnson was hopeless and Starmer pulled him apart. If that happens every week and it gets coverage most people are going to wake up to the fact that it might not be a good idea to have a low on detail game show host as a PM. The Tories are going to find it difficult to undermine Starmer IMO, unless they find something that sticks that is currently unknown. A lot of PB Johnson fanbois on here have tried to suggest he is boring, which is hardly going to shift the needle much, even if it were true. One on here yesterday tried to suggest that "being forensic" was a bad thing. Maybe he ought to look at the forensic ability of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Both would have run rings around The Clown. Johnson's advisors are going to have to do a lot better, and Johnson himself would be well advised to start looking at using some heavyweights to support him rather than surrounding himself with hopeless sycophants.
As always, one of Boris' greatest assets is his critics' unswerving dedication to underestimating him...
You are just too tribally blind to see what most other people can see. Starmer is going to do this to Johnson week in week out for the next 4 years.
Coronavirus won't last 4 years. More jovial times will return.
Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.
The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.
With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.
Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier this time.
Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.
No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.
I do not recall Wilson being demonised before the 1964 election. How did the Tories attack Gaitskell and Attlee?
OT, just watched last week's PMQ at long last. Johnson was hopeless and Starmer pulled him apart. If that happens every week and it gets coverage most people are going to wake up to the fact that it might not be a good idea to have a low on detail game show host as a PM. The Tories are going to find it difficult to undermine Starmer IMO, unless they find something that sticks that is currently unknown. A lot of PB Johnson fanbois on here have tried to suggest he is boring, which is hardly going to shift the needle much, even if it were true. One on here yesterday tried to suggest that "being forensic" was a bad thing. Maybe he ought to look at the forensic ability of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Both would have run rings around The Clown. Johnson's advisors are going to have to do a lot better, and Johnson himself would be well advised to start looking at using some heavyweights to support him rather than surrounding himself with hopeless sycophants.
As always, one of Boris' greatest assets is his critics' unswerving dedication to underestimating him...
You are just too tribally blind to see what most other people can see. Starmer is going to do this to Johnson week in week out for the next 4 years.
Coronavirus won't last 4 years. More jovial times will return.
More likely, Starmer will destroy Johnson week in week out for a few years, none of which will count for anything when he stands down a year before the next election and someone else takes over.
"Britons were pictured packed like sardines on trains and buses today and warned that social distancing was 'next to impossible' as millions across the country went back to work for the first time after Boris Johnson eased the lockdown. .......................................................................................................................................... Passengers, the majority not wearing masks, were nose-to-nose on the Victoria Line in London this morning after services were suspended when a customer fell ill on a rush hour train. 'Social distancing during the peak was a joke. During the suspension our carriages were heaving - it will get worse,' said one worker, adding it was a 'complete shambles'."
The PM is on a very sticky wicket. For all their deficiencies international comparisons are not flattering at the moment. Care Homes have proved to be a serious weak spot. The opposition to quarantine by the likes of Grant Shapps was and is bewildering. The consequences of having so many of our goods manufactured overseas have come home to bite in the supply of PPE, masks and indeed in testing. The NHS did well in increasing capacity quickly but it remains bureaucratic and top heavy with weak management. The longer this goes on the more evident it will be. The government has sought to rely on the advice of experts but that has proved problematic in several areas, the most recent of which is the development of the app where mistakes have been made and time lost. The government is trying to move the story on in terms of the economy without really having sufficient capacity to test quickly or an app that will facilitate tracing. This is unlikely to end well.
Quite frankly only an incompetent of Corbyn's level could fail to win PMQs in such a situation. The main problem for the LOTO is where do you start? How do you bring together a coherent narrative? Starmer is more than capable of doing that.
So is it Grant Shapps who has been opposing quarantine ?
Patel was in favour of it but was overruled in Cabinet.
Comments
I'm not sure about Max Hasting's comparison with 1945 but Clement Attlee was also dour. He faced off against the ultimate charismatic leader and won a landslide.
Sensible tactics from Labour, a step up from Uncle Thickie, Maureen from Margate has written to me again with an anecdote.
My missus is good at coining them, often food related - ‘Concentrated Mince’ is my personal favourite.
This is wildly off topic but I just wanted to doff my cap to your pleasant phraseology!
It's the headbangers and deadweights around Boris I worry about more.
(p.s. I'm not convinced Boris really believes in Brexit either)
It would be like a general election between Johnson and one of his more effective, dour Cabinet ministers who stood on a more good-times future election platform.
Not a good model for the next election.
Name me a single LOTO or PM who has systematically and regularly been beaten at PMQs and who has gone on to win an election.
I can't think of a single one.
A change of Gov't is about "due", potentially with confidence and supply from the SNP.
Genomics England, in partnership with the GenOMICC consortium, is working with the NHS to deliver whole genome sequencing of up to 20,000 people who have been severely affected by COVID-19 – requiring intensive care – and 15,000 people who had mild symptoms.
https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/covid-19/
It's like saying there's never cause and effect. Obvs sometimes 'connections' are made that are false, and we all know about conspiracists finding Tholian webs where none exist. But there is actually such a thing as cause and effect y'know
'He was the future once.'
Killed him dead right there.
And fwiw remove your nagging doubt about wishful thinking, I haven't voted conservative for more than 20 years
I would suggest that simply doing a very good job at PMQs won't be enough on its own for Starmer to become PM. I think his biggest job is to work out how he's going to react to the big decisions that are coming up. Simply opposing for opposition's sake won't be a good approach.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/12/covid-19-has-completely-sunk-chances-swift-eu-trade-deal/
» show previous quotes
Isn't it extraordinary that inadequate people feel brave behind a keyboard
Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness. Jog on.
Now you may be right and think I don't understand politics but bearing in mind you have no idea who I am that's a strange assumption to make.
PMQs is great news for the tiny % of nerds who give a toss but its an increasingly irrelevant way to gauge the political barometer.
Not that nuance works well when you can take a line out of context and claim that's all it said.
We never heard a peep from lunatic MPs in the Blair years.
Even it's your story vs some factoid. Jezza says but are you disrespecting Maureen, and you say no, but overall the facts show this problem isn't as described by her story.
Where Starmer has got Boris is twisting some of the government own guidelines. That is much harder proposition.
A cross between IDS quiet man & Gordon Brown without his charisma.
Out of interest why do you think it's so hilarious to call Starmer Sir Keith?
I didn't watch so I don't know but its entirely possible he didn't willfully lie
Personally, I think the bigger problem is with the guidance that replaced this one after the 13 March. It is totally inadequate.
It does help having a more intelligent man leading The Opposition.
i) Where possible care staff live in the care home.
ii) Severely limit staff hopping from one home to the next.
iii) Staff as far as possible either use their own, or where they are reliant on public transport use the same transport to and from the care home (Special buses/minibuses laid on to pick and drop off staff).
Basically as far as possible "bubble" the staff and residents..
All the above measures aren't easy or always possible but they could have been put in place more than they are now.
I'm sure you appreciate the difference
1) the folder of official answers
2) the ability to deflect, concede or refer (see answer to the SNP's furlough case)
3) the last word
If not, then it is probably the same level of humour that thought calling Osborn “Gideon” was funny.
ii) Agreed 100% - not just between homes but within units within a home.
iii) Actually this could be counter-productive.
I believe the advice is actually for staff within a home to mingle as little as possible. If the staff are all in the same vehicle then you end up with if one of them is ill then they can pass it to all of their colleagues.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-hospital-discharge-service-requirements
Looks like a good result for the Republicans in the CA-25 special election
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/13/republican_garcia_has_early_lead_in_ca25_house_election_143190.html
They have also held onto a congressional seat in WI
https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/05/12/wisconsin-7th-congressional-district-election-tom-tiffany-wins/3090312001/
Also, looks like Trump's approval is at 46%
This is about competence. Major lost the 1997 election on Black Wednesday when the economic competence perception that carried them through the election months earlier was swept away by events and their inept handling of them. Same thing here - if Starmer can hang the albatross of incompetence around the government over such a critical issue then it is finished.You don't get the benefit of the doubt when your waffling bumbling promote people based on fealty not talent leads to tens of thousands of excess deaths and an economic depression.
"You say this isn't a disaster and if it is isn't your fault. You said x and then y happened". "We never said x". Yes you did here is the formal advice". Errr. Followed soon by "I would like to clear up with the house that I did say x". "Do you now accept that x meant that all these people are dead who didn't need to be" etc etc
"UPDATE:Turns out there is wriggle room, Keir Starmer didn’t read the small print. Which is a basic task for a lawyer:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information and will be updated shortly."
https://order-order.com/2020/05/13/boris-misleads-commons-government-care-home-guidance/
PB gets the facts first.
Hague had witty lines but was not as probing
The difference is he's either morally suspect or incompetent? Given his past history consists of lying to his boss, lying to his readers, lying to his wives, lying to his political colleagues... Then it's easy to see how people might jump to conclusions.
Quite frankly only an incompetent of Corbyn's level could fail to win PMQs in such a situation. The main problem for the LOTO is where do you start? How do you bring together a coherent narrative? Starmer is more than capable of doing that.
I don't think the PM really can win right now when its such a sombre time.
..........................................................................................................................................
Passengers, the majority not wearing masks, were nose-to-nose on the Victoria Line in London this morning after services were suspended when a customer fell ill on a rush hour train. 'Social distancing during the peak was a joke. During the suspension our carriages were heaving - it will get worse,' said one worker, adding it was a 'complete shambles'."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8314303/Back-work-day-Commuters-pack-Tube-trains.html
Which makes my point about PMQs, it is a complete irrelevance. The labour supporters on here were euphoric an hour ago but......
Not quite the point Keir makes in his letter, but still fair,