Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The great vacillator: Starmer needs to find some backbone – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 17 in General
The great vacillator: Starmer needs to find some backbone – politicalbetting.com

pic.twitter.com/dhr6Xn0JHY

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,665
    edited October 17
    Typically thoughtful, elegantly written post, with many very valid points, most of which I do concur. Certainly re: the security law, and public desire for stronger leadership re: COVID, though the later is maybe best left to mayors who (like US Governors) have EXECUTIVE role and responsibities.

    On the other hand, do NOT buy the argument that Starmer is frit of the likes of the BJ Crowd. A guy who once prosecuted the IRA? Versus a guy who right now looks like he couldn't savage a sheep deed or alive. Naw.

    As for strategy, isn't Ken Starmer's somewhat reminiscent of Joe Biden's? Based on somewhat similar situations and calculus: challenging a charismatic, bombastic egoist incumbent from none-to-solid perch as leader of a diverse, divided following still in semi-shock from its last shellacking. At a time of unprecedented national crisis (combination of Corn Laws and the Black Death in modern dress) AND when the incumbent is falling over himself and fecking up royally just about everywhere all the time.

    So maybe watchful waiting is NOT such a bad strategy in 2020 on either side of the Atlantic, and my side of the Pacific

    AND perhaps the public WANTS a spell of "normalcy" as one candidate most memorably said 100 years ago in 1920, in the aftermath of world war AND pandemic, on the way to his own landslide presidential election victory.

  • New Zealand General Election 2020

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics


    "The final tally of advance votes sat at 1,976,996, after 233,575 people cast their vote on Friday.

    That is well in excess of the total number of advance votes cast in previous elections. Last election 1.2 million votes were cast in advance and in 2014 the total was 717,000 advance votes.

    Just 334,000 votes were cast in advance in 2011.

    The final tally represents 76 per cent of the total number of votes cast in the 2017 election and 57 per cent of the enrolled population."

    . . . . .

    "The surge in popularity of early voting means there could be a good indication of the overall election result within an hour or so of polls closing at 7pm on Saturday.

    But the results of votes in closely contested and potentially key electorates will take a few hours longer, and preliminary results from the two referendums won’t be published until October 30.

    Under New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional system, with the party vote deciding how many seats each party gets, trends that show up fairly early on during vote counting tend to give a good idea of the balance of power in Parliament."

  • Mobile phone fine story FPT -- the minicab business is now app-driven.
  • @ydoethur has posted already about schools keeping windows open during the winter. The Mail joins in:

    Schoolchildren are being left outside in the rain and sitting in freezing classrooms because of unclear Covid advice from Government, parents say
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8848303/Schoolchildren-left-outside-rain-unclear-Covid-advice.html

    Here is an earlier TES (Times Education Supplement) story with none of the Mail's intrusive video adverts.
    https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-open-windows-leave-teachers-freezing-winter-looms
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,796
    Good header David . Being an establishment stooge is the last thing a Labour leader should be. If Labour aren't a party of principle they're nothing. It's got to be their USP. Their supporters need them to offend the Telegraph and the Mail. It's easy to understand why he wants to distance himself from Corbyn but that doesn't require being Tory-lite. Labour's unpopularity under Corbyn was not caused by being principled but by being incoherent.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    Jennifer Arcuri has reportedly admitted having an affair with Boris Johnson after allegations that he used his position as London mayor to get the businesswoman favourable treatment.

    The prime minister avoided a criminal investigation after the police watchdog found no evidence that he influenced the payment of thousands of pounds of public money to Acuri, or secured her participation in foreign trade trips that he led.

    Arcuri admitted to having an affair with Johnson while he was with his then wife Marina Wheeler, according to the Daily Mail. “I think that goes without saying,” she reportedly said when asked if they had an affair. “It’s pretty much out there … But I’m not going to talk about it.”
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    @ydoethur has posted already about schools keeping windows open during the winter. The Mail joins in:

    Schoolchildren are being left outside in the rain and sitting in freezing classrooms because of unclear Covid advice from Government, parents say
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8848303/Schoolchildren-left-outside-rain-unclear-Covid-advice.html

    Here is an earlier TES (Times Education Supplement) story with none of the Mail's intrusive video adverts.
    https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-open-windows-leave-teachers-freezing-winter-looms

    This is a problem. And it’s only going to get bigger.

    Having made enquiries based on suggestions last week, I find that school budgets are already alarmingly close to empty. Heat curtains, extra heaters and even higher fuel bills are going to be problematic.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,153
    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,153
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    Care to elaborate?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,817
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    Except that Burnham, Khan and Starmer are all singing from different tactical hymn books, and clearly not talking to each other to develop a strategy.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    On what basis is Johnson claiming that the figures for Manchester are “clearly getting worse”?

    https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=utla&areaName=Manchester

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Burnham and Starmer are asking for the same thing no? Government covid support to continue?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,901
    Well done Jacinda. Smashed it if the exit is right.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    Care to elaborate?
    Well from a Labour perspective this is entirely complementary. You don’t win a game of chess by playing only the Queen.

    It was great to see Burnham taking it to Boris at the end of the week. It was great to see Starmer setting the agenda at the start of the week. Both working in the national interest taking on a weak, demonstrably incompetent government.

    More please.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    Except that Burnham, Khan and Starmer are all singing from different tactical hymn books, and clearly not talking to each other to develop a strategy.
    TBF, I can understand why nobody would particularly wish to talk to Sadiq Khan.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,153
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    Care to elaborate?
    Well from a Labour perspective this is entirely complementary. You don’t win a game of chess by playing only the Queen.

    It was great to see Burnham taking it to Boris at the end of the week. It was great to see Starmer setting the agenda at the start of the week. Both working in the national interest taking on a weak, demonstrably incompetent government.

    More please.

    On the one hand we've got the deputy leader of the Labour Party claiming that 134 COVID deaths is grim and on the other we have the Labour mayor of Manchester arguing that the situation isn't that bad.

    That doesn't look great to me.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    edited October 17
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-54533339
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,901
    Looks like a disaster for National and NZ First
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/keir-starmer-urges-pm-to-impose-circuit-breaker-lockdown-on-england
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    edited October 17
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    When it was revealed (although slightly misrepresented) that the Govt had broken with SAGE advice to adopt a policy of a (series of) short national circuit breaker(s), Starmer came out in favour of an immediate short national circuit breaker.

    Of course the Government, being this Govt, then made an entire mess of responding to this by calling him an “opportunist” whilst elements of it were briefing half the newspapers that they were on the verge of introducing a short national circuit breaker.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/keir-starmer-urges-pm-to-impose-circuit-breaker-lockdown-on-england
    "Labour leader says Boris Johnson must ‘follow the science’ as Covid death toll rises sharply."

    You know you have a nebbish on your hands when that is being bigged up as evidence of political colossusdom.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Thank you for the replies.

    My understanding is this suggestion has not yet been adopted outside Northern Ireland although Drakeford is considering it for Wales.

    So I can’t see that he’s exactly ‘upended the consensus’ by supporting it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,949
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    Can't be bothered to trawl through David's trolling of Sir Keir.

    Re. the kerfuffle yesterday, I suggest it's much more important to look west than east. What will shape Boris Johnson's next 4 years is not what is happening with Europe but with the US. If Trump loses, Johnson (and Farage) are more isolated in the world than ever. CNN have a very good piece out this morning on this:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/special-relationship-election-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,817
    edited October 17
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    He appears to want the whole of England to stop working - but he's a bit vague about whether this is the March restrictions or something looser than that - because Liverpool, Manchester and a bunch of students can't contain themselves. And of course, no mention of how it gets paid for.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692
    I think Starmer is probably too cautious and lacks the ability to think quickly on his feet. He is far from perfect. However he is far, far better than his predecessor and the man he faces across the despatch box. That also matters a great deal.

    That he is not allowing himself and Labour to be drawn into increasingly desperate Tory attempts to ignite a culture war is entirely positive.
  • Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    He is not daft

    Starmer has been absent from the debate this week which has seen Burnham dominating headlines

    Indeed David's article is spot on
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    He is not daft

    Starmer has been absent from the debate this week which has seen Burnham dominating headlines

    Indeed David's article is spot on
    Absent from the debate? Would you like me to start quoting your reaction on Tuesday?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    He is not daft

    Starmer has been absent from the debate this week which has seen Burnham dominating headlines

    Indeed David's article is spot on
    Absent from the debate? Would you like me to start quoting your reaction on Tuesday?
    :)
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,032

    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?

    Everything johnson does is grandstanding aimed for maximum impact for that minute with no concept of joined up thought and strategy, and we waste time talking about Starmer and Burnham!
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    He is not daft

    Starmer has been absent from the debate this week which has seen Burnham dominating headlines

    Indeed David's article is spot on
    Absent from the debate? Would you like me to start quoting your reaction on Tuesday?
    That was quickly lost in the furore over Greater Manchester and Andy Burnham taking on HMG

    That has dominated the headlines and it was fortunate for Starmer following the resignation of seven of his front benchers which in normal times would have been the big story of the week

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    He is not daft

    Starmer has been absent from the debate this week which has seen Burnham dominating headlines

    Indeed David's article is spot on
    Absent from the debate? Would you like me to start quoting your reaction on Tuesday?
    That was quickly lost in the furore over Greater Manchester and Andy Burnham taking on HMG

    That has dominated the headlines and it was fortunate for Starmer following the resignation of seven of his front benchers which in normal times would have been the big story of the week

    Nice try Big G. Nice try.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    A similar phenomenon is occurring across the pond. Joe Biden, mocked as 'Sleepy Joe' is even more appropriate for Herdson's trolling. Indeed, if you replaced Starmer with Biden you'd have the same piece.

    But here's the thing: Joe Biden is about to win a landslide against an incumbent President.

    Why so? Because the last thing the public needs or wants right now are 'charismatic' politicians. The people are tiring of them. This pandemic requires a steady hand at the tiller. Someone who listens to the science and acts accordingly. Joe Biden, Keir Starmer fit the bill perfectly.

    The right kind of people for these febrile times.

  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    nichomar said:

    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?

    Everything johnson does is grandstanding aimed for maximum impact for that minute with no concept of joined up thought and strategy, and we waste time talking about Starmer and Burnham!
    Quite
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    I did, thanks, 46 hours post-test - and negative!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,796
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/keir-starmer-urges-pm-to-impose-circuit-breaker-lockdown-on-england
    "Labour leader says Boris Johnson must ‘follow the science’ as Covid death toll rises sharply."

    You know you have a nebbish on your hands when that is being bigged up as evidence of political colossusdom.
    Sometimes only Yiddish hits the spot!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    One advantage of Johnson spending a lot of time vacillating/delaying over launching this muted "national circuit breaker" is that (if it happens) there seems to be a reasonable chance that it might overlap with deaths starting to fall, given that case numbers are already showing signs in many of the "hotspot" areas of at least plateauing, if not declining. I get the impression at the moment that when Johnson is going on telly describing "increasing numbers" in places like Manchester he is actually referring to the lagging statistics of hospitalisations and deaths which are still catching up.

    There therefore is some hope that they will be confident to declare a half term circuit breaker as "effective" and lift it at its scheduled time. (although the bad news for the longer term is that this will convince them that it has been effective and they will be tempted to try it again in future)
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    Pulpstar said:

    Well done Jacinda. Smashed it if the exit is right.

    Sturgeon seen furiously scribbling notes
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    nichomar said:

    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?

    Everything johnson does is grandstanding aimed for maximum impact for that minute with no concept of joined up thought and strategy, and we waste time talking about Starmer and Burnham!
    Well... whose job is it to expose, counter and ultimately defeat Johnson and his antics? The building is ablaze, and people are irrelevantly droning on about the fire brigade!
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    alex_ said:

    given that case numbers are already showing signs in many of the "hotspot" areas of at least plateauing, if not declining.

    Not a chance. And everyone who predicts things like this with the virus gets bitten in the ass,

    The virus infection rate will continue to grow through the upcoming winter. It just doesn't happen in a perfect linear pattern.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    Roger said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/keir-starmer-urges-pm-to-impose-circuit-breaker-lockdown-on-england
    "Labour leader says Boris Johnson must ‘follow the science’ as Covid death toll rises sharply."

    You know you have a nebbish on your hands when that is being bigged up as evidence of political colossusdom.
    Sometimes only Yiddish hits the spot!
    Like Johnson's a schmuck
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    Freedland: if Americans repudiate Trump, that would suggest the reassertion of a political rule that seemed to have been shredded in 2016: that there are some things voters will not tolerate. That incompetence, corruption and dishonesty exact a price. The restoration of that standard would not be kind to Johnson. And a defeated Trump would rob the prime minister of what has been a useful, if largely unspoken, argument: no matter how bad Johnson has been, no matter how inept his handling of the pandemic, at least he’s not been as awful as that man in the White House. If Trump is beaten, that handy comparator will become unavailable – along with the relative reassurance it provided
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    IanB2 said:

    Freedland: if Americans repudiate Trump, that would suggest the reassertion of a political rule that seemed to have been shredded in 2016: that there are some things voters will not tolerate. That incompetence, corruption and dishonesty exact a price. The restoration of that standard would not be kind to Johnson. And a defeated Trump would rob the prime minister of what has been a useful, if largely unspoken, argument: no matter how bad Johnson has been, no matter how inept his handling of the pandemic, at least he’s not been as awful as that man in the White House. If Trump is beaten, that handy comparator will become unavailable – along with the relative reassurance it provided

    So true.

    Nov 3rd is going to re-shape Britain.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551

    alex_ said:

    given that case numbers are already showing signs in many of the "hotspot" areas of at least plateauing, if not declining.

    Not a chance. And everyone who predicts things like this with the virus gets bitten in the ass,

    The virus infection rate will continue to grow through the upcoming winter. It just doesn't happen in a perfect linear pattern.
    So why pretend to be able to control it and ruin people's lives?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    Contrary to the populist 'King of the North' twitterati orgasm, I don't think Andy Burnham got it right at all. He had a point about the north being treated separately but the rest of it was utterly tiresome grandstanding of all the wrong kind.

    We need tougher measures to contain this pandemic, not weaker ones. Burnham would have done better to hammer home the point which was buried deep within his anti-Conservative rhetoric, that we require a national circuit breaker.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692
    IshmaelZ said:

    nichomar said:

    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?

    Everything johnson does is grandstanding aimed for maximum impact for that minute with no concept of joined up thought and strategy, and we waste time talking about Starmer and Burnham!
    Well... whose job is it to expose, counter and ultimately defeat Johnson and his antics? The building is ablaze, and people are irrelevantly droning on about the fire brigade!
    The only people who can get rid of Johnson over the next four years are Tory MPs. If they don’t, I am pretty confident that Starmer will at the next GE. However, the more interesting bit is whether he’d defeat an alternative. For me, Sunak is becoming less impressive with every week that passes and I’m not sure who else there is.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692

    IanB2 said:

    Freedland: if Americans repudiate Trump, that would suggest the reassertion of a political rule that seemed to have been shredded in 2016: that there are some things voters will not tolerate. That incompetence, corruption and dishonesty exact a price. The restoration of that standard would not be kind to Johnson. And a defeated Trump would rob the prime minister of what has been a useful, if largely unspoken, argument: no matter how bad Johnson has been, no matter how inept his handling of the pandemic, at least he’s not been as awful as that man in the White House. If Trump is beaten, that handy comparator will become unavailable – along with the relative reassurance it provided

    So true.

    Nov 3rd is going to re-shape Britain.
    Only if Trump loses.

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    edited October 17

    alex_ said:

    given that case numbers are already showing signs in many of the "hotspot" areas of at least plateauing, if not declining.

    Not a chance. And everyone who predicts things like this with the virus gets bitten in the ass,

    The virus infection rate will continue to grow through the upcoming winter. It just doesn't happen in a perfect linear pattern.
    So why pretend to be able to control it and ruin people's lives?
    Oh we can control it. The Asians have.

    Mandatory face masks outdoors & indoors. No exceptions. You leave your house even to walk your dog: face mask. End of.

    Borders sealed with mandatory quarantine on new arrivals.

    Compulsory contact tracing.

    Enforced isolation and quarantine.


    Instead, we piss around at the margins.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    edited October 17

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    Contrary to the populist 'King of the North' twitterati orgasm, I don't think Andy Burnham got it right at all. He had a point about the north being treated separately but the rest of it was utterly tiresome grandstanding of all the wrong kind.

    We need tougher measures to contain this pandemic, not weaker ones. Burnham would have done better to hammer home the point which was buried deep within his anti-Conservative rhetoric, that we require a national circuit breaker.
    You can't contain a virus because as soon as you come out of a lockdown or circuit breaker it will come back - Unless you feel it is acceptable to force people to live as hermits for years and the complete social and economic collapse that will bring.The government need to be less arrogant (and admit they cannot defeat it) and admit it is something to live with - live we did with flu up to last year - after all the death rate of flu and covid-19 are not that far apart . We are treating covid-19 like it is plague.

    Also hospitals are always full at this time of year (with flu cases) .This is not novel to 2020 winter season. It woudl help if the media and givernment get less obsessed bu coivd-19 and maybe quote cancer deaths for a month to get things into persepctive
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285

    IanB2 said:

    Freedland: if Americans repudiate Trump, that would suggest the reassertion of a political rule that seemed to have been shredded in 2016: that there are some things voters will not tolerate. That incompetence, corruption and dishonesty exact a price. The restoration of that standard would not be kind to Johnson. And a defeated Trump would rob the prime minister of what has been a useful, if largely unspoken, argument: no matter how bad Johnson has been, no matter how inept his handling of the pandemic, at least he’s not been as awful as that man in the White House. If Trump is beaten, that handy comparator will become unavailable – along with the relative reassurance it provided

    So true.

    Nov 3rd is going to re-shape Britain.
    Only if Trump loses.

    There's no if about it.

    Fancy a wager?

    Biden is going to win a landslide. I've never been so certain of anything political in my life.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,861
    FPT The @HYUFD model appears to be to follow the most accurate pollster for each state in 2016. Let’s try that. Here’s the final polls for Florida in 2016

    Trafalgar Group Trump +4
    Opinion Savvy Clinton +2
    Quinnipiac Tie
    CBS News/YouGov Tie
    Remington Research Trump +3
    Gravis* Clinton +1
    CNN/ORC Clinton +1

    RESULT Trump + 1.2

    So, Quinnipiac and YouGov were closest percentage wise in Florida, with Remington being closest while also making a correct call. This year Quinnipiac have Biden 11% up. I don’t think Remington or YouGov have polled there yet. On your own logic, then, Biden wins Florida - something I don’t think will happen but consistent with following the most accurate available pollster from 2016. Florida’s 29 EC votes more than offset Michigan and Wisconsin

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discounting Trafalgar, but you cherry pick data from just them. Trafalgar were 2.7% out in Trump’s favour in Florida but this year have him up by only 2% now. If they are the same percentage out as 2016 then Biden wins Florida. Same in Michigan where they have Trump 1% up but overstated him 1.7% in 2016.

    That’s why we are all sceptical of you @HYUFD . You pick old poll that suits you you disregard the data within those very same polls that doesn’t fit your argument. The cherry picked data you yourself cite shows Trafalgar overstating Trump regularly by, on average, roughly 2%. Which is more than the 1% they have him ahead in Michigan - as I say they overstated him there in 2016 by 1.7%. You also disregard your favourite pollster’s latest Wisconsin prediction of Biden by 3%.

    Yes, Trump may yet win, no one with an understanding of probability denies that. But you have no evidence to persuade sceptics to shift the odds. Trafalgar, overall, are not quite as good a predictor of future events as Paul the Octopus, who called 85% of matches at the 2010 World Cup correctly. Trafalgar called 7 out of 9 state races correctly in 2016 - or roughly 77%. Then again, as you said the other day, probabilty/odds are just a cop out. Which begs the question - what you are doing posting so often on a gambling site?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The problem is that COVID is politics on steroids (lives v livelihoods), and the division are not down traditional party (or even Brexit) lines. The division between Burnham and Khan is remarkable, and yet nobody is talking about it.

    Starmer has ended up looking a bit sidelined this week. The government's argument with Burnham completely undermines his leader's criticism of the government.

    Don’t be daft.
    He is not daft

    Starmer has been absent from the debate this week which has seen Burnham dominating headlines

    Indeed David's article is spot on
    I rate Mr Herdson's headers very highly, however today he has allowed his partially to make the argument for him, so no it is not spot on.

    I suspect many Tories view Starmer with a similar disdain to how some of us on the left viewed Major before 1992. For the first time of asking Major stood on his soap box and for those without strident views either way, he was just the ticket. Starmer could be similar.

    As for your withering criticism of anything non-Johnsonian over the last weeks, I suspect in days rather than weeks, both you and Johnson will be eating your words
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    IanB2 said:

    Freedland: if Americans repudiate Trump, that would suggest the reassertion of a political rule that seemed to have been shredded in 2016: that there are some things voters will not tolerate. That incompetence, corruption and dishonesty exact a price. The restoration of that standard would not be kind to Johnson. And a defeated Trump would rob the prime minister of what has been a useful, if largely unspoken, argument: no matter how bad Johnson has been, no matter how inept his handling of the pandemic, at least he’s not been as awful as that man in the White House. If Trump is beaten, that handy comparator will become unavailable – along with the relative reassurance it provided

    If Johnson's a Churchillian he's a special relationshiper, so how about he pivots to a President Biden, a bit like the Blair Clinton to Bush progression, and we get a Grinch style conversion?

    I don't really see it. Kamala probably never saw the funny side of the pillarbox stuff.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    nichomar said:

    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?

    Everything johnson does is grandstanding aimed for maximum impact for that minute with no concept of joined up thought and strategy, and we waste time talking about Starmer and Burnham!
    Well... whose job is it to expose, counter and ultimately defeat Johnson and his antics? The building is ablaze, and people are irrelevantly droning on about the fire brigade!
    The only people who can get rid of Johnson over the next four years are Tory MPs. If they don’t, I am pretty confident that Starmer will at the next GE. However, the more interesting bit is whether he’d defeat an alternative. For me, Sunak is becoming less impressive with every week that passes and I’m not sure who else there is.

    The next Prime Minister will be a (currently) lower tier MP who has kept their hands clean during the pandemic. It's more likely to be Cleverly, Mordaunt or Tugenhat than Sunak or Gove. When push comes to shove the Tory membership tend to gravitate towards leaders that can win elections, and as the consequences of the economic response to the pandemic become clear over the next four years, the current Cabinet top tier will become unelectable. Sunak's window to become PM is narrow and dependson Johnson leaving in the next six months or so, which seems increasingly unlikely.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,796

    Roger said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/keir-starmer-urges-pm-to-impose-circuit-breaker-lockdown-on-england
    "Labour leader says Boris Johnson must ‘follow the science’ as Covid death toll rises sharply."

    You know you have a nebbish on your hands when that is being bigged up as evidence of political colossusdom.
    Sometimes only Yiddish hits the spot!
    Like Johnson's a schmuck
    English is chronically deficient in words to describe character defects whereas with Yiddish you're positively spoilt for choice. They're almost onomatopoeic. 'Nebbish' for Starmer doesn't need translation
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,032
    A few questions
    What is the governments covid objective and where’s the plan to achieve it?
    What is the governments post transition objective and where’s the plan...
    How is Sunak father in laws funds doing at present and similar ‘business people’ close to the government are doing?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692
    PB Tory criticism of Starmer seems to be he should be better than he is. The reality, though, is that you only need to be better than who you are up against - as long as you keep your party in line. This is where I think David has his strongest point. Starmer has to ensure that the predictable groans and criticisms from the far-left remain there and do not spread beyond that. Too much abstaining is not a good look. There were legitimate, considered grounds to abstain on the Security Bill. There are no good reasons to do so on the one relating to immunity for the armed forces. Let’s see what happens there.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    edited October 17

    alex_ said:

    given that case numbers are already showing signs in many of the "hotspot" areas of at least plateauing, if not declining.

    Not a chance. And everyone who predicts things like this with the virus gets bitten in the ass,

    The virus infection rate will continue to grow through the upcoming winter. It just doesn't happen in a perfect linear pattern.
    So why pretend to be able to control it and ruin people's lives?
    Oh we can control it. The Asians have.

    Mandatory face masks outdoors & indoors. No exceptions. You leave your house even to walk your dog: face mask. End of.

    Borders sealed with mandatory quarantine on new arrivals.

    Compulsory contact tracing.

    Enforced isolation and quarantine.


    Instead, we piss around at the margins.
    thats terrifying if you think that how to deal with a virus that has about the same death rate as flu because thats how you think society should end up living for ever then .
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way

    Total freedom. No masks. No fear.

    And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.

    It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,890

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    Contrary to the populist 'King of the North' twitterati orgasm, I don't think Andy Burnham got it right at all. He had a point about the north being treated separately but the rest of it was utterly tiresome grandstanding of all the wrong kind.

    We need tougher measures to contain this pandemic, not weaker ones. Burnham would have done better to hammer home the point which was buried deep within his anti-Conservative rhetoric, that we require a national circuit breaker.
    You can't contain a virus because as soon as you come out of a lockdown or circuit breaker it will come back - Unless you feel it is acceptable to force people to live as hermits for years and the complete social and economic collapse that will bring.The government need to be less arrogant (and admit they cannot defeat it) and admit it is something to live with - live we did with flu up to last year - after all the death rate of flu and covid-19 are not that far apart . We are treating covid-19 like it is plague.
    The problem with that approach is that Covid is significantly worse than the flu. It spreads more quickly and it sends a higher proportion of people infected to hospital. We do not have the hospital capacity to cope.

    People will see that and will live like hermits without instruction. A de facto lockdown might be preferable to a de jure one on the grounds of personal liberty, but in economic terms there's little difference. In health terms the differences are very large, of course.

    This is why zero covid is my preference. We have the chance of reaching an after, with domestic freedom at least, without being reliant on the uncertainty of a vaccine.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,817

    IshmaelZ said:

    nichomar said:

    p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.

    Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?

    Everything johnson does is grandstanding aimed for maximum impact for that minute with no concept of joined up thought and strategy, and we waste time talking about Starmer and Burnham!
    Well... whose job is it to expose, counter and ultimately defeat Johnson and his antics? The building is ablaze, and people are irrelevantly droning on about the fire brigade!
    The only people who can get rid of Johnson over the next four years are Tory MPs. If they don’t, I am pretty confident that Starmer will at the next GE. However, the more interesting bit is whether he’d defeat an alternative. For me, Sunak is becoming less impressive with every week that passes and I’m not sure who else there is.

    The next Prime Minister will be a (currently) lower tier MP who has kept their hands clean during the pandemic. It's more likely to be Cleverly, Mordaunt or Tugenhat than Sunak or Gove. When push comes to shove the Tory membership tend to gravitate towards leaders that can win elections, and as the consequences of the economic response to the pandemic become clear over the next four years, the current Cabinet top tier will become unelectable. Sunak's window to become PM is narrow and dependson Johnson leaving in the next six months or so, which seems increasingly unlikely.
    It was very easy for Sunak to be popular, coming in and being responsible for a £200bn bailout scheme. His popularity will very quickly wane when taxes go up and spending comes down, as that collosal amount of money needs to be paid back.

    As always with the Next PM and Next Tory Leader markets, lay the favourite at any given time.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    edited October 17
    nichomar said:

    A few questions
    What is the governments covid objective and where’s the plan to achieve it?
    What is the governments post transition objective and where’s the plan...
    How is Sunak father in laws funds doing at present and similar ‘business people’ close to the government are doing?

    I think those questions are fair - On the first they have never stated an objective -just plenty of measures - maybe because they know that the objective is beyond reach (elimination of a virus- rarely achieved ever in world history ). They are in effect peddling false hope
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673
    So, Covid is out of control, the oven-ready Brexit deal is inedible, another scandal is confirmed in the press and BoZo's chum across the water is heading for defeat.

    What cunning plan does he have to restore his fortunes?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763

    PB Tory criticism of Starmer seems to be he should be better than he is. The reality, though, is that you only need to be better than who you are up against - as long as you keep your party in line. This is where I think David has his strongest point. Starmer has to ensure that the predictable groans and criticisms from the far-left remain there and do not spread beyond that. Too much abstaining is not a good look. There were legitimate, considered grounds to abstain on the Security Bill. There are no good reasons to do so on the one relating to immunity for the armed forces. Let’s see what happens there.

    A typically PB reductionist reply. It isn't just about who wins an election: a successful premiership is more likely to spring from "He's fought our corner for the past 4 years and been right about all the important things" than from "Not as shit as Johnson" votes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    If you had watched the news or read a paper on Tuesday you would have found Starmer all over the front pages. But yes, the LoO is unlikely to reach those this week who did not follow the news. He did not launch a series on Netflix.
    But I didn’t. So what did he do?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/keir-starmer-urges-pm-to-impose-circuit-breaker-lockdown-on-england
    "Labour leader says Boris Johnson must ‘follow the science’ as Covid death toll rises sharply."

    You know you have a nebbish on your hands when that is being bigged up as evidence of political colossusdom.
    Sometimes only Yiddish hits the spot!
    Like Johnson's a schmuck
    English is chronically deficient in words to describe character defects whereas with Yiddish you're positively spoilt for choice. They're almost onomatopoeic. 'Nebbish' for Starmer doesn't need translation
    There are plenty of rude words but they tend toward the same meaning
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    edited October 17

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    Contrary to the populist 'King of the North' twitterati orgasm, I don't think Andy Burnham got it right at all. He had a point about the north being treated separately but the rest of it was utterly tiresome grandstanding of all the wrong kind.

    We need tougher measures to contain this pandemic, not weaker ones. Burnham would have done better to hammer home the point which was buried deep within his anti-Conservative rhetoric, that we require a national circuit breaker.
    You can't contain a virus because as soon as you come out of a lockdown or circuit breaker it will come back - Unless you feel it is acceptable to force people to live as hermits for years and the complete social and economic collapse that will bring.The government need to be less arrogant (and admit they cannot defeat it) and admit it is something to live with - live we did with flu up to last year - after all the death rate of flu and covid-19 are not that far apart . We are treating covid-19 like it is plague.
    The problem with that approach is that Covid is significantly worse than the flu. It spreads more quickly and it sends a higher proportion of people infected to hospital. We do not have the hospital capacity to cope.

    People will see that and will live like hermits without instruction. A de facto lockdown might be preferable to a de jure one on the grounds of personal liberty, but in economic terms there's little difference. In health terms the differences are very large, of course.

    This is why zero covid is my preference. We have the chance of reaching an after, with domestic freedom at least, without being reliant on the uncertainty of a vaccine.
    zero covid is unrealistic . Living is about being realistic and so should government be . The destruction of society is not a price worth paying for a illness that is a lot closer to flu than plague.
    Also these types of viruses will come every few years . If we have set such a draconian precedent now then businesses will never invest knowing they will be subject to government ordered closure in a few years - The overreaction to covid-19 (with no stated realistic objective in sight ) is far far more damaging to society than the illness itself
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,817
    edited October 17

    alex_ said:

    given that case numbers are already showing signs in many of the "hotspot" areas of at least plateauing, if not declining.

    Not a chance. And everyone who predicts things like this with the virus gets bitten in the ass,

    The virus infection rate will continue to grow through the upcoming winter. It just doesn't happen in a perfect linear pattern.
    So why pretend to be able to control it and ruin people's lives?
    Oh we can control it. The Asians have.

    Mandatory face masks outdoors & indoors. No exceptions. You leave your house even to walk your dog: face mask. End of.

    Borders sealed with mandatory quarantine on new arrivals.

    Compulsory contact tracing.

    Enforced isolation and quarantine.


    Instead, we piss around at the margins.
    Such policies are pretty much impossible to implement in a Western liberal democracy, no matter how much we can all agree they would work - which is why major population centres in Europe and North America have been hit so hard by the virus.

    Face masks are a good idea though, everyone wear one when you leave the house.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,796
    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    I'd like to be as optimistic as you but when I think of the Labour Party I can hardly name a prominent member beyond Starmer. The party feels hollowed out. I saw Raynor the other day She makes Watson sound like a Colossus and as for the shadow chancellor.....Where are the big hitters?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,861
    Scott_xP said:
    The problem that many Tory posters on here (I would name him but it would sound like I am developing an obsession) is that they assume that Brexit is all voters who voted leave care about. Patriotic folk in the North were very pleased about the Falklands War too. Didn't turn much of the Red Wall blue even in 1983 given the economic effects of Thatherism in the North. Gratitude for Brexit won't help Johnson if he pushes the North even further back.

    Slightly OT, and while I hasten to add that I don't read it, has anyone noticed how the Daily Star really really hates Cummings? Unflattering pics of him seem to be on their fromt page (which, I hasten to add, I glimpse at the supermarket, of course) weekly. Previous to the Barnard Castle Eye Test (great 80s indie band name!) they didn't seem to give much of a monkeys about politics.

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/your-free-complete-council-tax-22847349
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692
    IshmaelZ said:

    PB Tory criticism of Starmer seems to be he should be better than he is. The reality, though, is that you only need to be better than who you are up against - as long as you keep your party in line. This is where I think David has his strongest point. Starmer has to ensure that the predictable groans and criticisms from the far-left remain there and do not spread beyond that. Too much abstaining is not a good look. There were legitimate, considered grounds to abstain on the Security Bill. There are no good reasons to do so on the one relating to immunity for the armed forces. Let’s see what happens there.

    A typically PB reductionist reply. It isn't just about who wins an election: a successful premiership is more likely to spring from "He's fought our corner for the past 4 years and been right about all the important things" than from "Not as shit as Johnson" votes.
    But you always need to win the election first. That said, not being as shit as Johnson, who is unequivocally shit in every way, is a pretty good start!

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100

    PB Tory criticism of Starmer seems to be he should be better than he is. The reality, though, is that you only need to be better than who you are up against - as long as you keep your party in line. This is where I think David has his strongest point. Starmer has to ensure that the predictable groans and criticisms from the far-left remain there and do not spread beyond that. Too much abstaining is not a good look. There were legitimate, considered grounds to abstain on the Security Bill. There are no good reasons to do so on the one relating to immunity for the armed forces. Let’s see what happens there.

    The main party political or electoral significance of this week is that the blue wall seats are vulnerable. Labour has a route to reach them.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692
    Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551

    Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.

    and Sweden which doesn't have a second wave either
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,615
    edited October 17
    Pulpstar said:

    Well done Jacinda. Smashed it if the exit is right.

    It looks like a landslide. Jacinda Ardern is no stranger to caution.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,861
    Jonathan said:

    PB Tory criticism of Starmer seems to be he should be better than he is. The reality, though, is that you only need to be better than who you are up against - as long as you keep your party in line. This is where I think David has his strongest point. Starmer has to ensure that the predictable groans and criticisms from the far-left remain there and do not spread beyond that. Too much abstaining is not a good look. There were legitimate, considered grounds to abstain on the Security Bill. There are no good reasons to do so on the one relating to immunity for the armed forces. Let’s see what happens there.

    The main party political or electoral significance of this week is that the blue wall seats are vulnerable. Labour has a route to reach them.
    Indeed. I don't understand Johnson's choices here. He's going for no deal in a Quixotic attempt to forstall Scottish Independence (when, even in Scotland, fishing accounts for less than 1% of the Scots economy and no deal would kill off any faint hopes unionists have) and he's picking a fight with Greater Manchester. Who's advising him on this? If only he had some sort of data scientist type genius on tap.
  • Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,693

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    Contrary to the populist 'King of the North' twitterati orgasm, I don't think Andy Burnham got it right at all. He had a point about the north being treated separately but the rest of it was utterly tiresome grandstanding of all the wrong kind.

    We need tougher measures to contain this pandemic, not weaker ones. Burnham would have done better to hammer home the point which was buried deep within his anti-Conservative rhetoric, that we require a national circuit breaker.
    You can't contain a virus because as soon as you come out of a lockdown or circuit breaker it will come back - Unless you feel it is acceptable to force people to live as hermits for years and the complete social and economic collapse that will bring.The government need to be less arrogant (and admit they cannot defeat it) and admit it is something to live with - live we did with flu up to last year - after all the death rate of flu and covid-19 are not that far apart . We are treating covid-19 like it is plague.

    Also hospitals are always full at this time of year (with flu cases) .This is not novel to 2020 winter season. It woudl help if the media and givernment get less obsessed bu coivd-19 and maybe quote cancer deaths for a month to get things into persepctive
    If flu was as contagious and had as few treatment options as Covid-19 then it would be as bad.
    Why do people seem to think that it's a case of containing the virus OR helping the economy. If the virus runs rampant people will die in great numbers AND the economy will suffer.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,796
    edited October 17
    Scott_xP said:

    So, Covid is out of control, the oven-ready Brexit deal is inedible, another scandal is confirmed in the press and BoZo's chum across the water is heading for defeat.

    What cunning plan does he have to restore his fortunes?

    She'd be good but for £60,000 you'd be lucky to get it sharp

    https://hauteliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1510102703817.jpg
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,100
    Roger said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    alex_ said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

    Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
    Starmer led all three this week.

    And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
    I do hope so.

    I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

    That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
    I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
    You misunderstand. Not having followed the news closely, I have not heard any of that. In fact, to be truthful I don’t know what you’re talking about. What has he done and how has he done it?

    And if I haven’t, how many others who don’t follow the news closely will have heard from Starmer?
    He said we needed a national circuit break just after Johnson said we needed local tiers, true. The impact of this is rather exaggerated in the post you are replying to.
    I've not had Pb on 24/7 recently. Mr Z. Did you get your test result in reasonable time?

    As far as SKS is concerned, as others have said, he's not what you might call charismatic. More like Biden, and if the latter wins (please, please, God) then I suspect the sigh of relief will spread over here.
    Similarly, if Johnson is still leader of the Tories at the next election I will be voting for a Labour Party led by Starmer.

    But I’m not convinced that he’s resonating with the wider public. He doesn’t seem to have Blair’s gift of quick, simple phrases that describe his policies in a way people really get and news broadcasts want to put out. Well, fair enough, most people don’t.

    But at the same time, I don’t get the feeling he’s making a great impression as a political leader in his own right. That won’t matter if he’s up against Doris, but there are Tories out there he would find more of a challenge.
    Starmer is no Blair. He is a modern John Smith. This is a good thing, especially after Johnson. For me the teams the thing, what marks this opposition out compared to the previous one is that the team is able to have an impact.
    Now you're pushing it. The only way his 'team' have been having much of an impact this week is by resigning over various things.
    Burnham? A good Labour mayor. I heard he made one or two headlines.

    As Boris demonstrated in London against Brown in the late 00s, in British politics today the mayors have a critical role to play.

    Burnham (and Khan) aren't in Starmer's "team". They are all acting on their own and for their own reasons.
    Well that is your view. Either way we can rejoice that Labour is taking on this incompetent government.
    I'd like to be as optimistic as you but when I think of the Labour Party I can hardly name a prominent member beyond Starmer. The party feels hollowed out. I saw Raynor the other day She makes Watson sound like a Colossus and as for the shadow chancellor.....Where are the big hitters?
    You have the mayors, who will act like knights of the chess board.

    Looking in the cabinet you have some decent supporting pieces on the board.

    A couple of weeks ago you had Milliband doing a good Hague impression in the commons. A useful ally.
    Nandy is strong and will get stronger.
    Ashworth owns Hancock (admittedly not hard) and Allin-Khan is a strong performer
    Rayner in my view has potential. She gave a good deputy pmqs when Starmer was stuck at home.

    Others are quieter during the pandemic, the jury is out on Dodds as shadow chancellor. Either way far better than what preceded it and I expect to see a few more new and maybe some old faces in the months to come.
Sign In or Register to comment.