Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just a year and a bit after becoming PM Johnson finds him trai

SystemSystem Posts: 11,008
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just a year and a bit after becoming PM Johnson finds him trailing in YouGov’s “Best PM” polling

One of the things about this regular polling question on who people would prefer as PM is that the incumbent generally gets a huge boost and it is only very rare that we have a finding like that from YouGov today which puts the LOTO in the top slot.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,703
    1st?
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    yup
  • Options
    It's astonishing, pretty much since 2007 the Tories have always led on the best PM metric (bar the heady days of June and July 2017.)

    Is it a blip? We shall soon see.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    THIRD!

    (And back to work for me)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111
    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.
  • Options
    FPT
    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    If they win, then I trust you will allow me to join you to consume a pizza with extra pineapple together.

    It would be worth it, as long of course as it was a small pizza.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,703

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    Come on England!
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    I've not watched cricket since I was a schoolboy in the UK. My abiding memory is of the Australians playing England at Old Trafford, Bobby Simpson scored 311.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    If they win, then I trust you will allow me to join you to consume a pizza with extra pineapple together.

    It would be worth it, as long of course as it was a small pizza.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4mFew5DGYg
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111
    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    I've not watched cricket since I was a schoolboy in the UK. My abiding memory is of the Australians playing England at Old Trafford, Bobby Simpson scored 311.
    Could be worse. Could have been the Old Trafford match where Chris Tavaré scored 78 in 7 hours.
  • Options
    Wait so we have:

    Opinium: 4 points
    YouGov 6 points
    Survation: 8 points

    Anymore?

    Basically, the polls haven't moved
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    FPT
    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:
    I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
    Here's the ONS page on it.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020

    Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
    Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
    More fool you it’s not a fashion statement it’s a legal requirement and common sense.
    Would you care to explain why I am suddenly more at risk going to exactly the same shops as I have visited since lockdown started in March? The simple answer is I am not in any more danger of catching it now than I was then. Frankly its pure theatre to justify reopening things like pubs before its safe to do so.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,581
    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,470
    edited August 2020
    Watching Pakistan play cricket is always entertaining because they're so erratic. They win matches you couldn't imagine them winning and vice versa. The opposite of a team like New Zealand who are very predictable.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    So they were guilty of indecent exposure?
  • Options

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,581

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Isn't it still optional in Wales?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    edited August 2020

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
    Nothing seems to ever hurt his popularity.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,828
    Evening All :)

    The key metric for me is whether the public are ready to trust Labour back in Government and on that, currently, Starmer still has much to do.

    Yes, he's generally liked (and certainly doesn't inspire the antipathy Corbyn enjoyed) but Labour is more than Starmer and at some point there will be a need to put some flesh on the bones of what a Labour Britain in the mid 2020s and beyond might look like.

    I do think with Starmer in charge more people are likely to give Labour a hearing than was ever the situation with Corbyn. That's the opportunity Labour cannot afford to pass - convincing people they are ready and credible as the next Government is partly about the policy headlines but it's also about catching the sense of where people want the country to be heading.

    Governments lose when they lose that sense of direction.
  • Options

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Isn't it still optional in Wales?
    It is not mandated here in Wales

    A few more wearing them but vast majority do not

    And it was funny listening to Starmer backing Drakeford on non wearing of masks on his visit here this week
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Here in north Georgia almost everyone is wearing masks (except in restaurants with spacing). Non-maskers tend to be younger and mostly male.Costco will refuse entry without a mask, and many supermarkets are tending towards it, though not as strictly (yet) as Costco. Malls are not enforcing masks, though most wear them.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Isn't it still optional in Wales?
    Who knows anymore the guidance is so obviously complete guff now. Safe to be in an office for 8 hours maskless not safe to be in a corner shop for 2 minutes maskless. Safe to sit at a table having a pint for several hours not safe to goto tesco's without a mask. When rules are obviously nonsense then frankly I feel no inclination to follow them and instead follow my own common sense on what is safe.

    Therefore I continue to wfh, I make minimum trips shopping. I don't goto pubs or restaurants. I don't visit family or friends physically. I am pretty sure I am at less risk from that than many who advocate masks for shops but then happily sit down in a pub quaffing with friends
  • Options
    Tim_B said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Here in north Georgia almost everyone is wearing masks (except in restaurants with spacing). Non-maskers tend to be younger and mostly male.Costco will refuse entry without a mask, and many supermarkets are tending towards it, though not as strictly (yet) as Costco. Malls are not enforcing masks, though most wear them.
    Mark Drakeford, labour's first minister here in Wales has made them mandatory on public transport but not in shops, hence the poor uptake
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Here in north Georgia almost everyone is wearing masks (except in restaurants with spacing). Non-maskers tend to be younger and mostly male.Costco will refuse entry without a mask, and many supermarkets are tending towards it, though not as strictly (yet) as Costco. Malls are not enforcing masks, though most wear them.
    Mark Drakeford, labour's first minister here in Wales has made them mandatory on public transport but not in shops, hence the poor uptake
    They're not mandatory here, though the governor recommends them. It's up to businesses to mandate them on site. One of the more nonsensical things I've seen is people who clam the whole covid thing is a left wing (or right wing) conspiracy and refuse to wear a mask as it impinges on their rights.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,251
    edited August 2020
    France records 2,288 new cases of covid in the past 24 hours up 684 from yesterday

    Should this not be a worry for Brits on holiday there ?
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Isn't it still optional in Wales?
    Who knows anymore the guidance is so obviously complete guff now. Safe to be in an office for 8 hours maskless not safe to be in a corner shop for 2 minutes maskless. Safe to sit at a table having a pint for several hours not safe to goto tesco's without a mask. When rules are obviously nonsense then frankly I feel no inclination to follow them and instead follow my own common sense on what is safe.

    Therefore I continue to wfh, I make minimum trips shopping. I don't goto pubs or restaurants. I don't visit family or friends physically. I am pretty sure I am at less risk from that than many who advocate masks for shops but then happily sit down in a pub quaffing with friends
    But the friends in the pub should be 2m away and if they stand up should put the mask on, I do find it difficult from afar what rules are mandated in the UK. You are right that you have to make your own decisions. I have to shop for food and am glad mask wearing is 100% or you get thrown out after that I mix only with a small group of people 2m apart and only go into restaurants that are effectively empty. If others wish to mix and risk it I will just keep out of their way.
  • Options
    FPT:
    justin124 said:

    Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

    That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
    How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

    The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:
    I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
    Here's the ONS page on it.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020

    Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
    Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
    More fool you it’s not a fashion statement it’s a legal requirement and common sense.
    Would you care to explain why I am suddenly more at risk going to exactly the same shops as I have visited since lockdown started in March? The simple answer is I am not in any more danger of catching it now than I was then. Frankly its pure theatre to justify reopening things like pubs before its safe to do so.
    The only places I have to go, ie no choice, are the supermarket, pharmacy and hospital. It’s reassuring that the risk of infection in those places is reduced by 100% mask wearing. After that as I said it becomes a matter of choice and judgement.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Here in north Georgia almost everyone is wearing masks (except in restaurants with spacing). Non-maskers tend to be younger and mostly male.Costco will refuse entry without a mask, and many supermarkets are tending towards it, though not as strictly (yet) as Costco. Malls are not enforcing masks, though most wear them.
    Mark Drakeford, labour's first minister here in Wales has made them mandatory on public transport but not in shops, hence the poor uptake
    They're not mandatory here, though the governor recommends them. It's up to businesses to mandate them on site. One of the more nonsensical things I've seen is people who clam the whole covid thing is a left wing (or right wing) conspiracy and refuse to wear a mask as it impinges on their rights.
    I really don't get the anti-maskers. Yes, masks only reduce the risk of transmission downwards by a bit over 50%, but that is the difference between an r of 1.5 and 0.75. If people want lockdowns to end, wearing masks is a pretty modest price.

    I think nearly all spread is by aerosol in an indoor environment. There seem very few cases associated with fomites (contaminated objects). While masks are permeable to fine aerosols, they reduce velocity and thereby area of spread.

    Sure, 3 months ago when supplies were short, it wasn't the best use, but now that isn't an issue.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,828
    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    To be honest, arguing about how many people have really died is like three bald men fighting over a comb.

    It's the complete disregard for those who have lost loved ones and those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus which angers me.

    Instead, death has been trivialised and weaponised as lines on a graph or entries on a spreadsheet and we are supposed to believe it is "great news" that "only" some people have died today - it's not great news for them or for their families.
  • Options
    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    stodge said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    To be honest, arguing about how many people have really died is like three bald men fighting over a comb.

    It's the complete disregard for those who have lost loved ones and those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus which angers me.

    Instead, death has been trivialised and weaponised as lines on a graph or entries on a spreadsheet and we are supposed to believe it is "great news" that "only" some people have died today - it's not great news for them or for their families.
    The ons stats I was referring to was the "96% are adhering with mask usage" ones sorry for the confusion
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    France records 2,288 new cases of covid in the past 24 hours up 684 from yesterday

    Should this not be a worry for Brits on holiday there ?

    Spain is clearly worse but if people behave and follow the rules then they should be fine, if you don’t then you’ve only yourself to blame.
  • Options
    Can the remaining Corbyn fans just leave the party. He lost and he lost badly. Time to move on.

    Objectively Starmer is doing the best of any Labour leader in a long time. Why can't we just be happy with that
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Isn't it still optional in Wales?
    Who knows anymore the guidance is so obviously complete guff now. Safe to be in an office for 8 hours maskless not safe to be in a corner shop for 2 minutes maskless. Safe to sit at a table having a pint for several hours not safe to goto tesco's without a mask. When rules are obviously nonsense then frankly I feel no inclination to follow them and instead follow my own common sense on what is safe.

    Therefore I continue to wfh, I make minimum trips shopping. I don't goto pubs or restaurants. I don't visit family or friends physically. I am pretty sure I am at less risk from that than many who advocate masks for shops but then happily sit down in a pub quaffing with friends
    But the friends in the pub should be 2m away and if they stand up should put the mask on, I do find it difficult from afar what rules are mandated in the UK. You are right that you have to make your own decisions. I have to shop for food and am glad mask wearing is 100% or you get thrown out after that I mix only with a small group of people 2m apart and only go into restaurants that are effectively empty. If others wish to mix and risk it I will just keep out of their way.
    Yes and we all believe they are keeping 2m away and not even sure if that is a requirement here certainly from pubs I have passed its not being adhered to. As far as I know they have yet to pin any hotspots as springing from the use of shops whereas they have had several pubs have to reshut after spreading the virus.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

    Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)
  • Options
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

    It just does.

    I think the spices I* use seem to infuse well into the spirali.

    *Ok the spices my mother uses.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,379

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    Seems an odd way to celebrate.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748

    Can the remaining Corbyn fans just leave the party. He lost and he lost badly. Time to move on.

    Objectively Starmer is doing the best of any Labour leader in a long time. Why can't we just be happy with that

    Starmer is playing it perfectly. I'm a Tory, but if I had to work with what Starmer has at his disposal I could do no better.

    Dodds is the potentially weak link, but she certainly knows that and is just consolidating.

    Nandy is really doing well.



  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    FPT:

    justin124 said:

    Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

    That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
    How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

    The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

    That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,828
    Pagan2 said:


    The ons stats I was referring to was the "96% are adhering with mask usage" ones sorry for the confusion

    No need to apologise - it's the heat.

    I do feel those who have died have been forgotten, their families and loved ones have been forgotten and those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus have also been forgotten.

    All that seems to matter are beaches, eating out and pubs re-opening.

    I understand the need to emphasise life for the living but there has to be a moment or two of reflection for those who aren't with us and for those who will live with the consequences of the virus for a long time to come.

  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    stodge said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The ons stats I was referring to was the "96% are adhering with mask usage" ones sorry for the confusion

    No need to apologise - it's the heat.

    I do feel those who have died have been forgotten, their families and loved ones have been forgotten and those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus have also been forgotten.

    All that seems to matter are beaches, eating out and pubs re-opening.

    I understand the need to emphasise life for the living but there has to be a moment or two of reflection for those who aren't with us and for those who will live with the consequences of the virus for a long time to come.

    Yes I agree with that. Death should never be just a number used as a weapon.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
    My eldest awaits his A-level results. The apparent downgrade based on averages sounds really fair doesn't it?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    stodge said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The ons stats I was referring to was the "96% are adhering with mask usage" ones sorry for the confusion

    No need to apologise - it's the heat.

    I do feel those who have died have been forgotten, their families and loved ones have been forgotten and those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus have also been forgotten.

    All that seems to matter are beaches, eating out and pubs re-opening.

    I understand the need to emphasise life for the living but there has to be a moment or two of reflection for those who aren't with us and for those who will live with the consequences of the virus for a long time to come.

    I find it sad that people are not content with the freedoms they have by sticking within the rules. I see it out here people ignoring the rules when holding house parties, young people going into music bars without masks, people in bars also ignoring social distancing. If they stuck to the bloody rules we could all enjoy those freedoms but eventually their selfishness shuts it down for everyone or as a minimum makes it far more risky for the vulnerable.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111
    edited August 2020

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
    My eldest awaits his A-level results. The apparent downgrade based on averages sounds really fair doesn't it?
    It might be, if there were a meaningful way of doing it.*

    But leaving aside the fact there isn’t, would anyone trust an organisation that has long associations with Dominic Cummings to get its sums right?

    *Although if there were, would there have been any reason for us to have to send in predicted grades?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532
    edited August 2020
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

    Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)
    Good Lord, Don't let @Cyclefree catch you talking like that! Pasta varies considerably in shape, thickness and in surface area, each property affecting both cooking effects and sauce adherence. In short, some pastas work much better with particular sauces.

    Chicken doesn't belong in pasta or pizza obviously.

    https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/perfect-pairings-how-match-pasta-shapes-sauces
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

    Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)
    Good Lord, Don't let @Cyclefree catch you talking like that! Pasta varies considerably in shape, thickness and in surface area, each property affecting both cooking effects and sauce adherence. In short, some pastas work much better with particular sauces.

    Chicken doesn't belong in pasta or pizza obviously.

    https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/perfect-pairings-how-match-pasta-shapes-sauces
    Well obviously it doesn't belong, chicken is a meat substitute for people who dont want to admit being vegetarian :)
  • Options
    justin124 said:

    FPT:

    justin124 said:

    Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

    That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
    How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

    The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

    That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.
    Fine - then we address the serious possibly that better allocation of resources would have translated the 2.3m increase in the Tory vote into that whopping majority she wanted.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
    My eldest awaits his A-level results. The apparent downgrade based on averages sounds really fair doesn't it?
    I think there will be lots of places given out despite. When Fox jr switched on UCAS some years back, he saw that he had been accepted. It was only mid morning that he found out his results and had missed by one grade. It no longer mattered though.

    This is going to be a bumper year for clearing, with few foreign students and many deferring, so plenty of places for those who want them.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830

    justin124 said:

    FPT:

    justin124 said:

    Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

    That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
    How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

    The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

    That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.
    Fine - then we address the serious possibly that better allocation of resources would have translated the 2.3m increase in the Tory vote into that whopping majority she wanted.
    Stopping May having a whopping majority is something we should actually thank Corbyn for. May was by nature an authoritatarian. Let us not forget what a fan girl she was of the snoopers charter
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532
    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    If the SNP are needed to form a government, then they should get cabinet posts. Perhaps FCO orDefence etc or other non devolved issue.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592
    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited August 2020

    justin124 said:

    FPT:

    justin124 said:

    Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

    That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
    How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

    The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

    That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.
    Fine - then we address the serious possibly that better allocation of resources would have translated the 2.3m increase in the Tory vote into that whopping majority she wanted.
    Ok - but that is a problem for the Tories. I am not aware of any suggestions of internal sabotage re-their 2017 election campaign though.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532
    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    No what I am saying is that Labour did well because (rather than despite) having candidates who were clearly not supportive of Corbynism. The candidates ran campaigns tailored to their own patch. This may well have meant net gains in seats, rather than the hypothetical losses.

    After all, with a more centralised campaign in 2019, heavy losses resulted.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592
    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592
    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    Lord Bute, for instance.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
    And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
    My eldest awaits his A-level results. The apparent downgrade based on averages sounds really fair doesn't it?
    I think there will be lots of places given out despite. When Fox jr switched on UCAS some years back, he saw that he had been accepted. It was only mid morning that he found out his results and had missed by one grade. It no longer mattered though.

    This is going to be a bumper year for clearing, with few foreign students and many deferring, so plenty of places for those who want them.
    He's doing a work experience year. No point going to uni this year in the midst of virus restrictions inhibiting his opportunities for sex drugs and rock n roll. Will defer to 2021
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645

    Can the remaining Corbyn fans just leave the party. He lost and he lost badly. Time to move on.

    Objectively Starmer is doing the best of any Labour leader in a long time. Why can't we just be happy with that

    Sounds like the sort of thing a Blairite Tory would so.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
    And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer
    Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    When Parliament prorogues nobody is an MP. The Queen's ministers remain in office though - if you can be PM and not an MP during an election then other scenarios are possible. Ok so would need to command confidence of the Commons at some point...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

    You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

    Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.
    I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

    Yes I needed to know.

    But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.
    If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

    I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.
    I don’t have any children.

    But I’m still fucking furious.

    I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

    Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.
    My eldest awaits his A-level results. The apparent downgrade based on averages sounds really fair doesn't it?
    I think there will be lots of places given out despite. When Fox jr switched on UCAS some years back, he saw that he had been accepted. It was only mid morning that he found out his results and had missed by one grade. It no longer mattered though.

    This is going to be a bumper year for clearing, with few foreign students and many deferring, so plenty of places for those who want them.
    He's doing a work experience year. No point going to uni this year in the midst of virus restrictions inhibiting his opportunities for sex drugs and rock n roll. Will defer to 2021
    Good idea, particularly if work is available.

    I think to many gap year students things look grim, with both work and travel being problematic.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    Legally very few actual requirements, given how the role developed, but pretty darn strong conventions about who can do it I should think.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

    Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)
    Unless you're a pasta snob.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
    And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer
    Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask
    No not happening. I already do my bit by not visiting the plague pits they wished to reopen. Its a farcical law made by a government who wanted to do something and this was something so they did it. When laws are stupid then civil disobedience is warranted.

    While I would be happily disobeying this law, I should note that I can't due to COPD and asthma and apparently am medically exempt. So sadly even though not wanting to I am complying with legislation which is a complete downer
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    No what I am saying is that Labour did well because (rather than despite) having candidates who were clearly not supportive of Corbynism. The candidates ran campaigns tailored to their own patch. This may well have meant net gains in seats, rather than the hypothetical losses.

    After all, with a more centralised campaign in 2019, heavy losses resulted.

    I doubt very much that the significant swing of the last two weeks of the 2017 campaign was caused by that factor - and there was no evidence that candidates belonging to one wing of the party outperformed the others. Both Corbynites and non-Corbynites came up with far better results than initally expected.. I have no doubt that it was the National campaign which swung votes - aided greatly by May's inept campaign. However, misallocation of resources in key marginals may have denied Labour further gains.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242
    edited August 2020
    Deleted
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    Legally very few actual requirements, given how the role developed, but pretty darn strong conventions about who can do it I should think.
    If 400 mps said Joe Bloggs of 23 acacia st sometown has our total confidence even though he has never been a member of any party or stood for election. Do we think the queen would say no despite the conventions?
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
    And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer
    Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask
    No not happening. I already do my bit by not visiting the plague pits they wished to reopen. Its a farcical law made by a government who wanted to do something and this was something so they did it. When laws are stupid then civil disobedience is warranted.

    While I would be happily disobeying this law, I should note that I can't due to COPD and asthma and apparently am medically exempt. So sadly even though not wanting to I am complying with legislation which is a complete downer
    You could have saved a lot of time by saying you were exempt from mask wearing.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,111

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    When Parliament prorogues nobody is an MP. The Queen's ministers remain in office though - if you can be PM and not an MP during an election then other scenarios are possible. Ok so would need to command confidence of the Commons at some point...
    They need to be able to address Parliament. For that, they have to be a member of it.

    However, there was a PM who was briefly not a member of either house - Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1963, between renouncing his peerage and being elected MP for Perth and Kinross.

    There was also a foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker, who was foreign secretary for some months in 1964-65 despite losing his seat at the 1964 election.

    I don’t think Sturgeon could be PM without either being an MP or peer, or declaring she would enter parliament.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    edited August 2020
    Pagan2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    Legally very few actual requirements, given how the role developed, but pretty darn strong conventions about who can do it I should think.
    If 400 mps said Joe Bloggs of 23 acacia st sometown has our total confidence even though he has never been a member of any party or stood for election. Do we think the queen would say no despite the conventions?
    What I mean by convention is not that the Queen would say no, but that MPs would endeavour a solution so that scenario did not arise at all. In the same way a Lord could be a Cabinet Minister or PM, but the actions of recent decades would show that it is not regular convention to do so and seems unlikely to be much tested again (though it arose a little when people were speculating about caretaker PMs last year).
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
    And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer
    Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask
    No not happening. I already do my bit by not visiting the plague pits they wished to reopen. Its a farcical law made by a government who wanted to do something and this was something so they did it. When laws are stupid then civil disobedience is warranted.

    While I would be happily disobeying this law, I should note that I can't due to COPD and asthma and apparently am medically exempt. So sadly even though not wanting to I am complying with legislation which is a complete downer
    You could have saved a lot of time by saying you were exempt from mask wearing.
    Why it is irrelevant as I only found out 2 days ago and I am more incensed by the whole thing. To me it seems mask wearing in shops has suddenly been bought in to try and compensate for those idiots that want to go out for a pint with friends. They are inconveniencing 100% of people for the 30% minority that still visits pubs and they can go swivel if they think I am inconveniencing myself so some people who can't do without their friday night bevy then they can go imitate the oozlum bird.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,830
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    When Parliament prorogues nobody is an MP. The Queen's ministers remain in office though - if you can be PM and not an MP during an election then other scenarios are possible. Ok so would need to command confidence of the Commons at some point...
    They need to be able to address Parliament. For that, they have to be a member of it.

    However, there was a PM who was briefly not a member of either house - Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1963, between renouncing his peerage and being elected MP for Perth and Kinross.

    There was also a foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker, who was foreign secretary for some months in 1964-65 despite losing his seat at the 1964 election.

    I don’t think Sturgeon could be PM without either being an MP or peer, or declaring she would enter parliament.
    Non members of the commons have been allowed to address parliament in the past I believe

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_addressed_both_houses_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

    They just need to do it outside the hpuse of commons besides its only convention and new conventions can be made if the momentum to do so is there.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242
    edited August 2020
    Back to COVID - All the England data I could find

    The blue-grey band represents the range of excess death estimates based on the max and min for the previous 5 years.

    image
    image
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,532
    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Charles said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

    I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

    Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales
    Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed
    Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.
    Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

    200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

    So the conclusion is either

    a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
    b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

    The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer
    Someone posted the question up thread

    I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%
    Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me
    Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.
    And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer
    Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask
    No not happening. I already do my bit by not visiting the plague pits they wished to reopen. Its a farcical law made by a government who wanted to do something and this was something so they did it. When laws are stupid then civil disobedience is warranted.

    While I would be happily disobeying this law, I should note that I can't due to COPD and asthma and apparently am medically exempt. So sadly even though not wanting to I am complying with legislation which is a complete downer
    You could have saved a lot of time by saying you were exempt from mask wearing.
    I have seen several non mask wearing patients this week, sensibly these were wearing badges saying "mask exempt due to medical condition" though one of these was wearing a mask over his laryngectomy hole rather than mouth and nose.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,214

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    Foxy said:
    'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

    In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

    With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

    If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.
    Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.
    I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge
    Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.
    I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

    As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons
    When Parliament prorogues nobody is an MP. The Queen's ministers remain in office though - if you can be PM and not an MP during an election then other scenarios are possible. Ok so would need to command confidence of the Commons at some point...
    Total constitutional pedantry but it’s when Parliament is dissolved that MPs lose that status not prorogation which is the formal ending of a session.
  • Options

    Back to COVID - All the England data I could find

    The blue-grey band represents the range of excess death estimates based on the max and min for the previous 5 years.

    image
    image

    Sorry what's the X-axis?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242

    Back to COVID - All the England data I could find

    The blue-grey band represents the range of excess death estimates based on the max and min for the previous 5 years.

    image
    image

    Sorry what's the X-axis?
    Weeks - week 30 ended on 24th July
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    Wait so we have:

    Opinium: 4 points
    YouGov 6 points
    Survation: 8 points

    Anymore?

    Basically, the polls haven't moved

    Shhh...there's nothing else for OGH to run posts on other than these hyper-exciting polls - and Biden!
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    137 for 8.

    Game on

    You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.
    I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.
    What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

    (In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

    Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.
    Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

    Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)
    Good Lord, Don't let @Cyclefree catch you talking like that! Pasta varies considerably in shape, thickness and in surface area, each property affecting both cooking effects and sauce adherence. In short, some pastas work much better with particular sauces.

    Chicken doesn't belong in pasta or pizza obviously.

    https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/perfect-pairings-how-match-pasta-shapes-sauces
    Well obviously it doesn't belong, chicken is a meat substitute for people who dont want to admit being vegetarian :)
    image
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    Back to COVID - All the England data I could find

    The blue-grey band represents the range of excess death estimates based on the max and min for the previous 5 years.

    image
    image

    Sorry what's the X-axis?
    Weeks - week 30 ended on 24th July
    At what point are we net up on the death rate for 2019? When can we celebrate having had the Covid pandemic?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,161
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/articles/wild-camping-ban-shows-a-complete-lack-of-understanding/

    Sounds like our national parks are getting trashed. Daily Mail has a similar piece.

    Perhaps we need a more traditional soaking wet summer next year to remind everyone to head to Magaluf for parties.
This discussion has been closed.