This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
You can't blame lefties for thinking they might pull it off, however daft it might seem. After all, 52% of people have been dumb enough to vote for Brexit misery, which is probably a lot less reversible than a left wing Labour government, and probably just as damaging.
Okay but 40% of the vote is more than Brown and Ed achieved. I get the fact the latter two both did better based on seats but their respective voteshares in today's context would have meant they would have done a lot worse.
If I was to try and make a winning Labour Party, I'd start with the 40% voteshare achieved in 2017 and work from there, not from the low 30s voteshares we saw in 2010, 2015 and 2019.
The question for Labour is whether the c. 40% in 2017 was its true level of more the early to mid-30s in the other elections. I'm inclined to think one of the reasons why May didn't get her majority is that the electorate simply didn't trust her given her performance in the campaign and so "lent" Labour their votes to deny her the majority that seemed so nailed on. Whether that will be the situation in 2024 with whoever is PM, who knows?
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
You keep repeating this. Here are the principal items of the 2017 manifesto. How many did the Tories 'nick'?
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
2017 was important to show the 'we need to look tough on welfare' crowd they were out of touch. 2019 was important (although we should have known) to show the 'leadership doesn't' matter' crowd, they were also out of touch. [and perhaps also the 'we must remain at all costs' crowd as well]. Hopefully Labour have got the right combination now.
The big upside of Saturday's attacker turning out to be a cannabis smoking, Islamic asylum seeker crackpot is that the lefties won't mention it. I shuddered when I heard news of the attack, fearing it might be a right winger attacking POC
Looks like he murdered a gay couple having a picnic. RIP
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
Interesting that it is meat packaging once again. There must be something in the conditions in those plants that the virus thrives on.
Working hard (deep breathing) close together in a cold environment with little fresh air.
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
Interesting that it is meat packaging once again. There must be something in the conditions in those plants that the virus thrives on.
Cold, moist atmosphere means that aerosolised virus persists longer in a viable state. It's very hard to put figures on it, as no one has done any detailed research into the specifics that I'm aware of, but it's simple physics that the minute water droplets would evaporate more slowly. Add to that lot of people in a noisy environment standing quite close to each other and shouting to communicate, and it's hard to see how they wouldn't be favourable environments for viral transfer.
And I think the German workers were living together in dorms, so there's a combination of risks ?
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Thank God it's Michael Bay this time. He's one of the few artists who could significantly increase the world's cultural capital by the complete obliteration of his own works...
The key feature of both Corbyn's campaigns was that as the number of people who thought he might win increased the fewer votes he got. In 2017 most of the population assumed a big Tory win despite late shifts in the poll. In 2019 it is also true more were familiar with Corbyn so the Summer madness factor of 2017 was not repeated. All sorts of things might happen before the next election including a change of PM but one key factor will be LP positioning and manifesto. In 2019 there were a number of policies each of which would deny a Labour majority except in extreme circumstances.
Thank God it's Michael Bay this time. He's one of the few artists who could significantly increase the world's cultural capital by the complete obliteration of his own works...
The big upside of Saturday's attacker turning out to be a cannabis smoking, Islamic asylum seeker crackpot is that the lefties won't mention it. I shuddered when I heard news of the attack, fearing it might be a right winger attacking POC
Looks like he murdered a gay couple having a picnic. RIP
I might be cynical but I wonder whether he truly had mental issues or whether his cousin is trying to shift the focus from his religious views. I guess if he was on medication, that will be known (although we may not be told).
Thank God it's Michael Bay this time. He's one of the few artists who could significantly increase the world's cultural capital by the complete obliteration of his own works...
We are in total agreement.
Great, now you've permanently broken the site. I hope you're happy
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
Interesting that it is meat packaging once again. There must be something in the conditions in those plants that the virus thrives on.
Working hard (deep breathing) close together in a cold environment with little fresh air.
What we need to think about are what are the risk factors that cause infection and where else do we find them? If we can identify them correctly then many of the blanket bans and safety measures we are currently taking may be found to be unnecessary or of very marginal utility. At the moment we are trying to attack this virus with a sledgehammer. What we need is a rapier so that the consequences of living with it are kept to moderate.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
The opinion polls are stuffed with the overly politically engaged, who had all convinced each other Corbyn was toxic.
I wrote this at the time, which actually got it the wrong way round - it was the polls giving Con the lead that were the problem, those YouGovs showing labour doing well DID weight up the non politically engaged
Opinion piece printed in: The FT The Economist The New Statesman The Guardian The Observer The Daily Mirror The Morning Star
The Mail on Sunday
The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth. He thinks as he speaks – in slogans.
These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses. Yet they wield awesome power. They are destroying our economy, our cultural life and our children’s education in a fit of absent-mindedness.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
And any Boris-replacements, whilst they might be more competent (though if they're in the Cabinet, that's not something to take for granted), they are unlikely to have the audience appeal that BoJo managed in 2019.
The big upside of Saturday's attacker turning out to be a cannabis smoking, Islamic asylum seeker crackpot is that the lefties won't mention it. I shuddered when I heard news of the attack, fearing it might be a right winger attacking POC
Looks like he murdered a gay couple having a picnic. RIP
You really are a saddo that your first concern was that the lunatic might be a right winger, and that you can say there is a "big upside". What a nasty sewer you live in.
The big upside of Saturday's attacker turning out to be a cannabis smoking, Islamic asylum seeker crackpot is that the lefties won't mention it. I shuddered when I heard news of the attack, fearing it might be a right winger attacking POC
Looks like he murdered a gay couple having a picnic. RIP
I might be cynical but I wonder whether he truly had mental issues or whether his cousin is trying to shift the focus from his religious views. I guess if he was on medication, that will be known (although we may not be told).
There aren't many non cannabis smoking muslims who do this kind of thing
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Not directly relevant to the Covid vaccines, but a reminder that it's not just the bit of the virus that vaccines present as a target for the immune system to attack that counts, but also the effectiveness of the bits which signal the immune system to respond to the antigen:
3M-052, a synthetic TLR-7/8 agonist, induces durable HIV-1 envelope–specific plasma cells and humoral immunity in nonhuman primates https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/48/eabb1025 ...A fundamental challenge in vaccinology is learning how to induce durable antibody responses. Live viral vaccines (may) induce antibody responses that last a lifetime, but those induced with subunit vaccines wane rapidly. Studies in mice and humans have established that long-lived plasma cells (LLPCs) in the bone marrow (BM) are critical mediators of durable antibody responses. Here, we present data that adjuvanting an HIV-1 clade C 1086.C–derived gp140 immunogen (Env) with a novel synthetic Toll-like receptor (TLR)–7/8 agonist named 3M-052 formulated in poly(lactic-co-glycolic)acid or PLGA nanoparticles (NPs) or with alum, either alone or in combination with a TLR-4 agonist GLA, induces notably high and persistent (up to ~1 year) frequencies of Env-specific LLPCs in the BM and serum antibody responses in rhesus macaques. Up to 36 and 18% of Env-specific cells among total IgG-secreting BM-resident plasma cells were detected at peak and termination, respectively. In contrast, adjuvanting Env with alum or GLA in NP induced significantly lower (~<100-fold) LLPC and antibody responses. Immune responses induced by 3M-052 were also significantly higher than those induced by a combination of TLR-7/8 (R848) and TLR-4 (MPL) agonists. Adjuvanting Env with 3M-052 also induced robust activation of blood monocytes, strong plasmablast responses in blood, germinal center B cells, T follicular helper (TFH) cells, and persistent Env-specific plasma cells in draining lymph nodes. Overall, these results demonstrate efficacy of 3M-052 in promoting high magnitude and durability of antibody responses via robust stimulation of innate immunity and BM-resident LLPCs....</i>
Glaxo claims that their adjuvant being used by their partners (there are seven different vaccine development programmes) is likely superior to those being used in other programs.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
Of course they are. It’s what they do.
Civus Romanus sum. It was ever thus.
I'm actually ok with that as long as we know where we stand. But what's the point in a Treaty that only one side adheres to? Why should we 'play fair' if the US won't?
The incident in New York in 1997 was probably covered by Treaty but Georgia handed the suspect over anyway. They played fair. In the Harry Dunn case, the US has no intention of playing fair regardless of the Treaty, which probably did not cover the offender anyway.
Where's Raab? Supposed to be a bit of a tough guy, isn't he?
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
Presentation, image and perception are important in politics. The Left are not exempt from this.
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
Left wing policies can come under all sorts of polite euphemisms, but I am not sure 'unleashing potential' is one that even those on your side would adopt. It smacks rather of dirty inequality doesn't it? All very well unleashing the potential of the many, but what if some of them have greater potential than others?
Helen's an idiot for not reading and redrafting the civil service response.
"Not deemed to be providing a service" will be something technical about how they get round minimum wage I suspect.
Why do so many politicians have such a tin ear for how things sound to ordinary persons?
Because they are busy, lazy and not very bright.
(like most people in this country. Discuss...)
Maybe.
But it seems to me to be essential - indeed downright basic - political tradecraft. If you can’t even do this, what business do you have even being a politician in the first place.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
Presentation, image and perception are important in politics. The Left are not exempt from this.
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
Even if you have to break millions of eggs along the way.....
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
Midsummer, isn't it? Holiday time. It is a big thing in Sweden.
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
Midsummer, isn't it? Holiday time. It is a big thing in Sweden.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Yes I think it easily could.
You don't say! It got 40% in 2017!!!
As I said on my previous post, the stars were aligned in 2017 for Lab which I don't see as easily replicated. But there has been an eye-opening since then. We saw how that played out in 2017 for Lab and I suspect at the next GE we shall see how it plays out for the Cons esp. if they are under Boris.
Excellent piece from Jono Sumption, thanks to @isam for posting.
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Yes I think it easily could.
You don't say! It got 40% in 2017!!!
As I said on my previous post, the stars were aligned in 2017 for Lab which I don't see as easily replicated. But there has been an eye-opening since then. We saw how that played out in 2017 for Lab and I suspect at the next GE we shall see how it plays out for the Cons esp. if they are under Boris.
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
Interesting that it is meat packaging once again. There must be something in the conditions in those plants that the virus thrives on.
Indeed – the virus thrives on cheap processed meat and Big Religion – thankfully the world would be far, far better off without either.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Yes I think it easily could.
You don't say! It got 40% in 2017!!!
As I said on my previous post, the stars were aligned in 2017 for Lab which I don't see as easily replicated. But there has been an eye-opening since then. We saw how that played out in 2017 for Lab and I suspect at the next GE we shall see how it plays out for the Cons esp. if they are under Boris.
2024 could genuinely be 2019 reversed.
There is of course plenty of time for a wholly different narrative to play out but Boris imo will never again be an asset to the party.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
Presentation, image and perception are important in politics. The Left are not exempt from this.
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
Even if you have to break millions of eggs along the way.....
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
I'd prefer flights to and from Iran (And S America) just to simply be stopped, no need for quarantine with the EU* right now - we're more of a danger to them than they are to us.
* Except people who have been in Iran (Or South America) in the last fortnight travelling through the EU to have to quarantine though to catch the Schipol etc hoppers.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
But then the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Starmer should walk it
He may well do. Competent, could at a distance, with eyes squinted, be a Tory (cf David Laws, T Blair), and facing Boris, who surely even previous fans realise now is, simply, not up to being Prime Minister.
He won the election and it's clear he doesn't have a plan beyond that.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
Yes I think it easily could.
You don't say! It got 40% in 2017!!!
As I said on my previous post, the stars were aligned in 2017 for Lab which I don't see as easily replicated. But there has been an eye-opening since then. We saw how that played out in 2017 for Lab and I suspect at the next GE we shall see how it plays out for the Cons esp. if they are under Boris.
2024 could genuinely be 2019 reversed.
There is of course plenty of time for a wholly different narrative to play out but Boris imo will never again be an asset to the party.
I will not make very strong predictions until closer the time but your post rings true.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
Of course they are. It’s what they do.
Civus Romanus sum. It was ever thus.
I'm actually ok with that as long as we know where we stand. But what's the point in a Treaty that only one side adheres to? Why should we 'play fair' if the US won't?
The incident in New York in 1997 was probably covered by Treaty but Georgia handed the suspect over anyway. They played fair. In the Harry Dunn case, the US has no intention of playing fair regardless of the Treaty, which probably did not cover the offender anyway.
Where's Raab? Supposed to be a bit of a tough guy, isn't he?
Excellent piece from Jono Sumption, thanks to @isam for posting.
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
The problem has been that stopping the young then passing it on to the old is not at all easy.
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
I have not made any “wild accusations” - I simply drew the not unreasonable inference that a man who had had a husband was gay. I have made no comment on the other attendees.
The big upside of Saturday's attacker turning out to be a cannabis smoking, Islamic asylum seeker crackpot is that the lefties won't mention it. I shuddered when I heard news of the attack, fearing it might be a right winger attacking POC
Looks like he murdered a gay couple having a picnic. RIP
You really are a saddo that your first concern was that the lunatic might be a right winger, and that you can say there is a "big upside". What a nasty sewer you live in.
Could it be a suitable time for you to re-release your famous "strutting right wing populist" invective?
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
I have not made any “wild accusations” - I simply drew the not unreasonable inference that a man who had had a husband was gay. I have made no comment on the other attendees.
What does being gay have to do with being the unfortunate victim of a knife attack that the police is linking to terrorism?
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
Presentation, image and perception are important in politics. The Left are not exempt from this.
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
Even if you have to break millions of eggs along the way.....
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
Midsummer, isn't it? Holiday time. It is a big thing in Sweden.
There's a movie about that. Didn't end well.
The original British version with Christopher Lee was definitely better...
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
'Seoul could re-impose strict social distancing' https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/06/119_291632.html Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon said Monday that strict social distancing ― enforced nationwide between March 22 and May 5 ― may be re-imposed in the capital if the average daily number of confirmed COVID-19 infections exceeds 30 over the next three days.
The comment came amid growing concern about a second wave of infections following a steady rise in infection clusters in the densely populated greater Seoul area that includes the city of Incheon and Gyeonggi Province.
"We will have no choice but to return to the previous high-level of physical distancing if the average daily number of new coronavirus cases in Seoul for the next three days exceeds 30, or the occupation rate of hospital beds reaches 70 percent," Park said during a media briefing.
Park cited a warning from health experts that the number of new daily COVID-19 cases in the country could reach 800 soon.
"The second wave will be harder for the nation's medical system to handle, and in the end, it and other preventive measures could collapse," he said, vowing to closely consult with the mayor of Incheon and the governor of Gyeonggi Province. ...
I'd prefer flights to and from Iran (And S America) just to simply be stopped, no need for quarantine with the EU* right now - we're more of a danger to them than they are to us.
* Except people who have been in Iran (Or South America) in the last fortnight travelling through the EU to have to quarantine though to catch the Schipol etc hoppers.
There's a big argument coming down the line. Despite the usual suspects complaining about quarantine with better countries than us, they'll be out in force when we don't relax restrictions on those travelling to India et al.
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
Indeed. Does any trivial salacious gossip matter under the circumstances?
Well, it might help to put the incident in context, but basically 'nutter stabs a number of people in park and gets arrested' is probably about all the context you need.
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
I have not made any “wild accusations” - I simply drew the not unreasonable inference that a man who had had a husband was gay. I have made no comment on the other attendees.
What does being gay have to do with being the unfortunate victim of a knife attack that the police is linking to terrorism?
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
As a matter of interest, Topping - and this is a genuine question on which I have no view myself - do you think that if Corbyn had won and formed a government with a decent majority the Coronavirus crisis would have been handled better or worse?
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
I have not made any “wild accusations” - I simply drew the not unreasonable inference that a man who had had a husband was gay. I have made no comment on the other attendees.
What does being gay have to do with being the unfortunate victim of a knife attack that the police is linking to terrorism?
We do not know the facts yet.
It is possible that this was:-
(a) a random attack by a mentally ill man with no terrorist motive; (b) an attack by a man for terrorist motives; (c) an attack deliberately targeted at gay people.
Only in the last case would the victims’ sexuality be an issue - not because of what it says about them but what it says about the attacker’s motivation. But we have no way of knowing whether it was (c) and the police seem to think it was (b).
Regardless, it is desperately sad that two (three?) friends who probably had not met up for a while because of lockdown should lose their lives so senselessly and brutally.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
As a matter of interest, Topping - and this is a genuine question on which I have no view myself - do you think that if Corbyn had won and formed a government with a decent majority the Coronavirus crisis would have been handled better or worse?
I suspect Jon Ashworth would have done a better job than Hancock. Of course the advice from SAGE would have been the same. Would it have considered the situation or been asked do so earlier, though?
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
As a matter of interest, Topping - and this is a genuine question on which I have no view myself - do you think that if Corbyn had won and formed a government with a decent majority the Coronavirus crisis would have been handled better or worse?
Hooeee - that's a tricky one. No idea. I do think, however, that Sumptions criticisms of the govt's handling of it are spot on. But it's very early to make an assessment beyond that.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
Blimey. What ever your views on Mandelson as a politician, he was an effective minister in many departments. And a EU official.
Has to be a far better choice than Dr Fox.
I'd agree that Mandelson was effective in some posts.
But i don't think that that is enough - imo he not the most honest individual in the world in conducting his public affairs, and has an ego the size of the Great Pyramid.
in LOTR terms, he is "tricksy".
I think the nickname I gave him quite a few years ago - Lord Mandelbrot, is about right.
He's also in receipt of an EU pension, which comes with certain obligations.
He's the sort of smarmy git who would enjoy making life difficult for the UK, just because he could.
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
Midsummer, isn't it? Holiday time. It is a big thing in Sweden.
There's a movie about that. Didn't end well.
The original British version with Christopher Lee was definitely better...
Do you mean the Whicker Man? It was a great film with Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward, but it was set on a fictional Scottish island, not Sweden.
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
I have not made any “wild accusations” - I simply drew the not unreasonable inference that a man who had had a husband was gay. I have made no comment on the other attendees.
What does being gay have to do with being the unfortunate victim of a knife attack that the police is linking to terrorism?
We do not know the facts yet.
It is possible that this was:-
(a) a random attack by a mentally ill man with no terrorist motive; (b) an attack by a man for terrorist motives; (c) an attack deliberately targeted at gay people.
Only in the last case would the victims’ sexuality be an issue - not because of what it says about them but what it says about the attacker’s motivation. But we have no way of knowing whether it was (c) and the police seem to think it was (b).
Regardless, it is desperately sad that two (three?) friends who probably had not met up for a while because of lockdown should lose their lives so senselessly and brutally.
And that's my point - the victims are just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Meanwhile posters here are references their characteristics to justify posting their homophobic (and worse) views...
Excellent piece from Jono Sumption, thanks to @isam for posting.
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
The problem has been that stopping the young then passing it on to the old is not at all easy.
And "Death" is not the only negative outcome, although that's the one that all the "Not me, I'll be fine, restrictions only for others" crowd seem to want to discuss.
Serious illness, hospitalisation, ICU, lingering problems are all glossed over or assumed to be no more than the death rate - because otherwise it would damage the belief that "I'll be okay, let me do what I like"
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
Midsummer, isn't it? Holiday time. It is a big thing in Sweden.
There's a movie about that. Didn't end well.
The original British version with Christopher Lee was definitely better...
Do you mean the Whicker Man? It was a great film with Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward, but it was set on a fictional Scottish island, not Sweden.
Yes, I know, but the cultural setting was similar.
The islands in the opening sequence are actually the "Summer Isles", but boringly it was mostly filmed in Galloway.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
As a matter of interest, Topping - and this is a genuine question on which I have no view myself - do you think that if Corbyn had won and formed a government with a decent majority the Coronavirus crisis would have been handled better or worse?
Hooeee - that's a tricky one. No idea. I do think, however, that Sumptions criticisms of the govt's handling of it are spot on. But it's very early to make an assessment beyond that.
The press coverage would confirm Corbyn did a bad job, even if he had done ok. Here in Wales, Drakeford who is a Corbynite fool, has from those on the ground done a decent job of Coronavirus. BigG and Aveit not withstanding. The TV media in Wales has been brutal, comparing Drakeford's failure to open up quickly after lockdown to Johnson's decisiveness
The second Reading victim has been named - an American gay man - which may cast some light on a possible motive.
Not 100% convinced. The article I read said he was a friend of the teacher - it may just be bad luck that they were the group closest.
His husband died 8 years ago (SKYNews)
Do you know anything about the sexual orientation of the teacher or just making wild accusations to justify your views?
I have not made any “wild accusations” - I simply drew the not unreasonable inference that a man who had had a husband was gay. I have made no comment on the other attendees.
What does being gay have to do with being the unfortunate victim of a knife attack that the police is linking to terrorism?
We do not know the facts yet.
It is possible that this was:-
(a) a random attack by a mentally ill man with no terrorist motive; (b) an attack by a man for terrorist motives; (c) an attack deliberately targeted at gay people.
Only in the last case would the victims’ sexuality be an issue - not because of what it says about them but what it says about the attacker’s motivation. But we have no way of knowing whether it was (c) and the police seem to think it was (b).
Regardless, it is desperately sad that two (three?) friends who probably had not met up for a while because of lockdown should lose their lives so senselessly and brutally.
And that's my point - the victims are just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Meanwhile posters here are references their characteristics to justify posting their homophobic (and worse) views...
Which? If you're alluding to me - please post the "homophobic" post you refer to.
Excellent piece from Jono Sumption, thanks to @isam for posting.
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
The problem has been that stopping the young then passing it on to the old is not at all easy.
It requires a public health response where that is the goal. Perhaps too sophisticated for this government!
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
The last date they added new cases was the 18th, which means we're missing the 19th, 20th and 21st. I'm guessing the stats are so awful they've done a Spain and decided the short term hit of saying nothing will be better than the ongoing criticism of more deaths per capita than any other European country.
Midsummer, isn't it? Holiday time. It is a big thing in Sweden.
There's a movie about that. Didn't end well.
The original British version with Christopher Lee was definitely better...
Do you mean the Whicker Man? It was a great film with Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward, but it was set on a fictional Scottish island, not Sweden.
I think you mean Wicker. You're confusing it with the legendary reporter Alan Whicker, although he was pretty scary too.
Excellent piece from Jono Sumption, thanks to @isam for posting.
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
I'm interested, how do you intend of separating society into the under 40's and the over 40's? Or whatever your plan for partitioning into low risk and high risk is.
There must be plenty of households where the father is over 50 and has a realistic risk of a nasty illness and hospitalisation if he catches the virus, who lives with his teenage kids.
Do you propose one bus for under 40's and another bus for over 40's? All the teachers at schools would have to be under 40. Shops would have to set up a timetable for over 40's and under 40's periods.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39933116
Looks like he murdered a gay couple having a picnic. RIP
https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1275002340798533642?s=21
It's very hard to put figures on it, as no one has done any detailed research into the specifics that I'm aware of, but it's simple physics that the minute water droplets would evaporate more slowly.
Add to that lot of people in a noisy environment standing quite close to each other and shouting to communicate, and it's hard to see how they wouldn't be favourable environments for viral transfer.
And I think the German workers were living together in dorms, so there's a combination of risks ?
The Swedish Arcgis page appears to be updated and up to date.
My view is pretty strongly that a repackaged 2017-lite manifesto with a unified, credible cabinet that appears to not hate the country, really should be able to achieve 40% of the vote. Despite everything, hard-left nutty 2019 manifesto still got 32%, somehow.
I wrote this at the time, which actually got it the wrong way round - it was the polls giving Con the lead that were the problem, those YouGovs showing labour doing well DID weight up the non politically engaged
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1
3M-052, a synthetic TLR-7/8 agonist, induces durable HIV-1 envelope–specific plasma cells and humoral immunity in nonhuman primates
https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/48/eabb1025
...A fundamental challenge in vaccinology is learning how to induce durable antibody responses. Live viral vaccines (may) induce antibody responses that last a lifetime, but those induced with subunit vaccines wane rapidly. Studies in mice and humans have established that long-lived plasma cells (LLPCs) in the bone marrow (BM) are critical mediators of durable antibody responses. Here, we present data that adjuvanting an HIV-1 clade C 1086.C–derived gp140 immunogen (Env) with a novel synthetic Toll-like receptor (TLR)–7/8 agonist named 3M-052 formulated in poly(lactic-co-glycolic)acid or PLGA nanoparticles (NPs) or with alum, either alone or in combination with a TLR-4 agonist GLA, induces notably high and persistent (up to ~1 year) frequencies of Env-specific LLPCs in the BM and serum antibody responses in rhesus macaques. Up to 36 and 18% of Env-specific cells among total IgG-secreting BM-resident plasma cells were detected at peak and termination, respectively. In contrast, adjuvanting Env with alum or GLA in NP induced significantly lower (~<100-fold) LLPC and antibody responses. Immune responses induced by 3M-052 were also significantly higher than those induced by a combination of TLR-7/8 (R848) and TLR-4 (MPL) agonists. Adjuvanting Env with 3M-052 also induced robust activation of blood monocytes, strong plasmablast responses in blood, germinal center B cells, T follicular helper (TFH) cells, and persistent Env-specific plasma cells in draining lymph nodes. Overall, these results demonstrate efficacy of 3M-052 in promoting high magnitude and durability of antibody responses via robust stimulation of innate immunity and BM-resident LLPCs....</i>
Glaxo claims that their adjuvant being used by their partners (there are seven different vaccine development programmes) is likely superior to those being used in other programs.
The incident in New York in 1997 was probably covered by Treaty but Georgia handed the suspect over anyway. They played fair. In the Harry Dunn case, the US has no intention of playing fair regardless of the Treaty, which probably did not cover the offender anyway.
Where's Raab? Supposed to be a bit of a tough guy, isn't he?
(like most people in this country. Discuss...)
But it seems to me to be essential - indeed downright basic - political tradecraft. If you can’t even do this, what business do you have even being a politician in the first place.
Didn't end well.
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1275014728595779584?s=20
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
* Except people who have been in Iran (Or South America) in the last fortnight travelling through the EU to have to quarantine though to catch the Schipol etc hoppers.
Condolences to the victims’ families.
p.s. The last Labour leader to win a GE from the left was Harold Wilson in 1974. It took him two goes in one year to win a majority of 3.
And he started off his attempts with 288 seats, as opposed to Starmer's 202...
Do you pick out the sexual orientations of all victims of terrorist attacks or just if they're "different"?
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/06/119_291632.html
Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon said Monday that strict social distancing ― enforced nationwide between March 22 and May 5 ― may be re-imposed in the capital if the average daily number of confirmed COVID-19 infections exceeds 30 over the next three days.
The comment came amid growing concern about a second wave of infections following a steady rise in infection clusters in the densely populated greater Seoul area that includes the city of Incheon and Gyeonggi Province.
"We will have no choice but to return to the previous high-level of physical distancing if the average daily number of new coronavirus cases in Seoul for the next three days exceeds 30, or the occupation rate of hospital beds reaches 70 percent," Park said during a media briefing.
Park cited a warning from health experts that the number of new daily COVID-19 cases in the country could reach 800 soon.
"The second wave will be harder for the nation's medical system to handle, and in the end, it and other preventive measures could collapse," he said, vowing to closely consult with the mayor of Incheon and the governor of Gyeonggi Province. ...
Which “wild accusation” did I make?
Also reports he previously threatened to blow up his flat and also chucked a telly out the window.
It is possible that this was:-
(a) a random attack by a mentally ill man with no terrorist motive;
(b) an attack by a man for terrorist motives;
(c) an attack deliberately targeted at gay people.
Only in the last case would the victims’ sexuality be an issue - not because of what it says about them but what it says about the attacker’s motivation. But we have no way of knowing whether it was (c) and the police seem to think it was (b).
Regardless, it is desperately sad that two (three?) friends who probably had not met up for a while because of lockdown should lose their lives so senselessly and brutally.
He's the sort of smarmy git who would enjoy making life difficult for the UK, just because he could.
http://hurryupharry.org/2020/06/21/the-ethnic-minority-test-why-women-like-munira-mirza-are-doomed-to-fail/
Meanwhile posters here are references their characteristics to justify posting their homophobic (and worse) views...
Serious illness, hospitalisation, ICU, lingering problems are all glossed over or assumed to be no more than the death rate - because otherwise it would damage the belief that "I'll be okay, let me do what I like"
The islands in the opening sequence are actually the "Summer Isles", but boringly it was mostly filmed in Galloway.
There must be plenty of households where the father is over 50 and has a realistic risk of a nasty illness and hospitalisation if he catches the virus, who lives with his teenage kids.
Do you propose one bus for under 40's and another bus for over 40's?
All the teachers at schools would have to be under 40.
Shops would have to set up a timetable for over 40's and under 40's periods.
He knows he has lost.