Would the real Keir Starmer please stand up? – politicalbetting.com
The Conservatives have spent £1.5 billion on contracts for their friends but are refusing to give our key workers the pay rise they deserve. pic.twitter.com/LuPVh8Lsv3
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
First, Rishi has started to jettison manifesto pledges.
Second, countries which spent more during the pandemic have been more successful. Just ask that nice Mr Trump. Or read @Nigelb's post towards the end of the last thread.
Third, it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
...it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
Show me those in the public sector who have received a pay cut in 2020? Show me those whose pension pot going into 2021 isn't exactly where they would have expected it to be at the start of 2020.
The private sector has done the economic heavy lifting required by Covid. Lost businesses, lost jobs, lost pay, lost pensions. It will be expected to pay for it in due course. Meanwhile, Labour bleats that the public sector has been hard done by as a result of Covid. No, it really hasn't.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
...it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
Show me those in the public sector who have received a pay cut in 2020? Show me those whose pension pot going into 2021 isn't exactly where they would have expected it to be at the start of 2020.
The private sector has done the economic heavy lifting required by Covid. Lost businesses, lost jobs, lost pay, lost pensions. It will be expected to pay for it in due course. Meanwhile, Labour bleats that the public sector has been hard done by as a result of Covid. No, it really hasn't.
Those share prices at record levels are for private sector companies. It is a mistake to regard the private sector as an amorphous mass. Some have done well, others have suffered, mitigated to an extent by support from the state, or public sector in your terms.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
...it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
Show me those in the public sector who have received a pay cut in 2020? Show me those whose pension pot going into 2021 isn't exactly where they would have expected it to be at the start of 2020.
The private sector has done the economic heavy lifting required by Covid. Lost businesses, lost jobs, lost pay, lost pensions. It will be expected to pay for it in due course. Meanwhile, Labour bleats that the public sector has been hard done by as a result of Covid. No, it really hasn't.
Those share prices at record levels are for private sector companies. It is a mistake to regard the private sector as an amorphous mass. Some have done well, others have suffered, mitigated to an extent by support from the state, or public sector in your terms.
And? That's no consolation to people who have lost their jobs. Meanwhile the public sector carries on as before. Inflated asset prices is a consequence of a decade of ultra low interest rates. If Kier Starmer said he'll "take back control" of monetary policy, and put up interest rates to sensible levels, I might vote him. He won't.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
...it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
Show me those in the public sector who have received a pay cut in 2020? Show me those whose pension pot going into 2021 isn't exactly where they would have expected it to be at the start of 2020.
The private sector has done the economic heavy lifting required by Covid. Lost businesses, lost jobs, lost pay, lost pensions. It will be expected to pay for it in due course. Meanwhile, Labour bleats that the public sector has been hard done by as a result of Covid. No, it really hasn't.
Those share prices at record levels are for private sector companies. It is a mistake to regard the private sector as an amorphous mass. Some have done well, others have suffered, mitigated to an extent by support from the state, or public sector in your terms.
And? That's no consolation to people who have lost their jobs. Meanwhile the public sector carries on as before. Inflated asset prices is a consequence of a decade of ultra low interest rates. If Kier Starmer said he'll "take back control" of monetary policy, and put up interest rates to sensible levels, I might vote him. He won't.
No it isn't, any more than the good news about vaccines will resurrect those who have already died. However, it is still a mistake to regard the two sectors as antagonistic. Suppose we halved overnight all public sector wages, so that teachers and nurses could no longer afford to shop in private sector shops or train at private sector gyms. There'd be even more private sector firms going bust. And, as already stated, some private sector firms are doing very well.
Asset price inflation probably owes as much to QE as interest rates. In theory, low interest rates should stimulate investment but too often this has been in assets, houses, art and so on rather than the productive economy.
The Telegraph has compiled a list of celebrity vaccine donors.
Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Lily Aldridge, Miranda Kerr, Barbara Palvin and Irina Shayk -- $29,750 (£22,315) Dolly Parton -- $1 million (£750,000) Madonna -- $1 million (£750,000) Wafic Saïd -- £3.33 million Lakshmi Mittal -- £3.5 million Rihanna -- $5 million (£4.2 million) Sir Li Ka Shing -- £9.75 million Jack Ma -- £11+ million Bill Gates -- £94+ million
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Good post, Ms Rose. In a few weeks time, too, we will see how our final departure from the EU works out, and if, as many (?most) of us expect it's to our disadvantage, then there is a policy for which the present PM bears a heavy responsibility.
Mike Tyson's hammering Jones Jr and it's not particularly close.
The ‘judges’ disagree. But it was an exhibition, and for charity. Tyson still has something about him, even in his fifties. I quite liked the commentator’s characterisation, of this being like two old uncles fighting at a barbecue!
Sydney has sweltered through its hottest November night since records began more than 160 years ago before temperatures again climbed above 40C in the city on Sunday ahead of a cool but gusty change.
Sydney has sweltered through its hottest November night since records began more than 160 years ago before temperatures again climbed above 40C in the city on Sunday ahead of a cool but gusty change.
It’s been a very mild October/November here too. I counted four frosts, none of them that hard. My geraniums are still alive although the nasturtiums are about finished. Normally they would have gone by about the 20th October.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
The great unsoaped don't give a fuck how much the government spends as long as it's on them or things they like. At least Johnson gets this. The UK is heading for 70bn net borrowing this year.
Naturally, there is a certain irony in seeing Tory MPs who voted for Johnson now outraged to discover that he won’t tell them the truth. Had you given a look to camera this morning every time an MP said something like “the prime minister needs to be straight with people”, you’d have had whiplash before breakfast.
Much worse are the ones still quietly making excuses for his character failings, like he’s some special case. Even at his lectern, Johnson seems to cast himself as the chorus to events, as opposed to the guy who decrees them. All the sighs and the winces and the “I wishes” – we are for ever being encouraged to see things as happening to the prime minister, as opposed to at his behest. He lacks the leadership qualities required to own his response.
No doubt his last defenders would claim that Johnson is simply giving people hope. If so, then he is demonstrably going the wrong way about it. Johnson has become a specialist in dashing hopes falsely raised (by him). Yet hope is hugely important, now more than at any time this past year, and a better leader – even an adequate one – should be able to inspire without misleading.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The other thing I have to state, despite being left-of-centre and anti Boris, is that they have done EXTREMELY well on ordering ahead the vaccines from 7 different potential sources. Although they pumped the UK invested Astra Zeneca they STILL pre-ordered 40 million of the Pfizer jab. Brilliant move.
I expect they will make a total horlicks of the vaccinating itself but in terms of pre-ordering it's a stupendous decision and they should take the plaudits.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
The great unsoaped don't give a fuck how much the government spends as long as it's on them or things they like. At least Johnson gets this. The UK is heading for 70bn net borrowing this year.
And yet Labour say it is not nearly enough.
People are smart enough to know that much as they like to have money spent on them or things they like, they are still the ones picking up the tab. Labour can try and claim "don't worry, we will only tax that rich guy over there...." only to discover that rich guy has fucked off out the jurisdiction - leaving the immobile little people having their purses picked.
The other I have to state, despite being left-of-centre and anti Boris, is that they have done EXTREMELY well on ordering ahead the vaccines from 7 different potential sources. Despite pumping the UK invested Astra Zeneca they STILL pre-ordered 40 million of the Pfizer jab.
I expect they will make a total horlicks of the vaccination programme but in terms of pre-ordering it's a stupendous decision and they should take the plaudits.
I think the vaccination programme will be okay. The high-risk groups already get ‘flu jabs, so they’re identified and contactable. The military are on logistics, which I’d expect to be quite visible - helicopters and trucks with blue light escorts moving them around.
After the high-risk groups have been done, the more difficult task is the general population programme. There will be lots of mopping up to do, probably a few million people who have had no recent contact with NHS, including many foreigners, homeless and young adults who have moved around a lot.
The biggest political risk IMO is grey-market American vaccines finding their way over early in the new year, leading to paid queue-jumping. Another is that the authorities find people they were looking for, for relatively minor issues or immigration status, as a result of them coming forward to be vaccinated.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
First, Rishi has started to jettison manifesto pledges.
Second, countries which spent more during the pandemic have been more successful. Just ask that nice Mr Trump. Or read @Nigelb's post towards the end of the last thread.
Third, it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
The Republicans are, of course, now set to sabotage and slowtime attempts at further spending.
F1: backed Ferrari to double score at 3.5 (3.6 with boost). They start 11th and 12th, narrowly missing out on Q3 and have free tyre choice which may prove handy.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The opposition job is indeed difficult, but sometimes an opposition should make stands. Even if it was unlikely to change government policy, Starmer could, for instance have made more of Johnson’s repeated insistence that reopening schools was 100% safe. It clearly wasn’t.
Similarly, a large portion of the (to date) £22bn spent on test and trace has been effectively wasted, in that it has had a relatively small effect on controlling the pandemic. It became obvious months ago that a centralised laboratory system using PCR was both costly and ineffective for this purpose. (Though it’s been a useful but hideously expensive means of tracking the extent of infection.) A smart opposition would rightly make something of this, rather than allowing the government to spin a belated look at cheap mass testing as its own innovation.
While it’s true that no other western countries which experienced similar levels of Covid in the first part of the year have done much better, that really doesn’t change the fact that we essentially wasted the summer opportunity for better planning.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Yes, but given the lag between case and mortality figures, US death rates could still be rising as ours fall.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
That’s not what the header was about. Alastair is quite right that at some point soon, Labour needs to set out an alternate view to the government’s of the way forward. That isn’t the same thing as ‘over-attacking’ the government.
In that, he is quite right. Whether Labour are up to the job is a separate question.
Sydney has sweltered through its hottest November night since records began more than 160 years ago before temperatures again climbed above 40C in the city on Sunday ahead of a cool but gusty change.
It’s been a very mild October/November here too. I counted four frosts, none of them that hard. My geraniums are still alive although the nasturtiums are about finished. Normally they would have gone by about the 20th October.
I have a tremendous display from most of my roses, better than the summer. It is weird.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
Starmer is attempting to define himself as a steady as she goes alternative to the Johnson government much as Biden did to Trump, he is not really for much just an alternative if Brexit goes wrong and the impact of Covid continues to bite on the nation's health and economic wellbeing
Starmer is attempting to define himself as a steady as she goes alternative to the Johnson government much as Biden did to Trump, he is not really for much just an alternative if Brexit goes wrong and the impact of Covid continues to bite on the nation's health and economic wellbeing
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
First, Rishi has started to jettison manifesto pledges.
Second, countries which spent more during the pandemic have been more successful. Just ask that nice Mr Trump. Or read @Nigelb's post towards the end of the last thread.
Third, it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
The Republicans are, of course, now set to sabotage and slowtime attempts at further spending.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
...it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
Show me those in the public sector who have received a pay cut in 2020? Show me those whose pension pot going into 2021 isn't exactly where they would have expected it to be at the start of 2020.
The private sector has done the economic heavy lifting required by Covid. Lost businesses, lost jobs, lost pay, lost pensions. It will be expected to pay for it in due course. Meanwhile, Labour bleats that the public sector has been hard done by as a result of Covid. No, it really hasn't.
Those share prices at record levels are for private sector companies. It is a mistake to regard the private sector as an amorphous mass. Some have done well, others have suffered, mitigated to an extent by support from the state, or public sector in your terms.
And? That's no consolation to people who have lost their jobs. Meanwhile the public sector carries on as before. Inflated asset prices is a consequence of a decade of ultra low interest rates. If Kier Starmer said he'll "take back control" of monetary policy, and put up interest rates to sensible levels, I might vote him. He won't.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
It's an interesting (in a bad way) hypothetical.
If BoJo goes a (relative) success- Brexit and Covid put to bed, the remaining cabinet can stay, maybe some of the refuseniks come back, things aren't any worse than now.
But what if things go so badly that BoJo has to go? Hard to imagine Gove or Sunak providing the necessary reset. The Conservatives would struggle to populate a relaunched government. And there won't be a GE that the government are bound to lose. Do we just end up with a four year zombie lemming march to the mother of all defeats? Major on sedatives?
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Indeed and like the US the next election will likely be a contest which is either for Johnson or against and being sound sane and honest should be more than enough for Starmer to cross that line.
This is where we have a problem. Even if new infections are coming down, with the NHS struggling due to staff self isolating, plus pressures on space, we're going to have rising fatality rates ourselves. Because we've got to assume the key change from last time in bringing mortality rates down is improved treatment (although a willingness to hospitalize earlier may be a factor in this paradox too). If that isn't available...
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Good point, there will be a lot of swing voters who are not paying much attention to party politics this year and will default to how they voted last time as their answer. When they actually come to vote rather than answer an opinion poll they will spend a bit more time thinking about the answer.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
I've just been reading about Conservative MPs' plans to block the new tiers plans. It doesn't say what alternative they propose. So I'm losing the plot. Do they just want to let Covid run loose?
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
It's an interesting (in a bad way) hypothetical.
If BoJo goes a (relative) success- Brexit and Covid put to bed, the remaining cabinet can stay, maybe some of the refuseniks come back, things aren't any worse than now.
But what if things go so badly that BoJo has to go? Hard to imagine Gove or Sunak providing the necessary reset. The Conservatives would struggle to populate a relaunched government. And there won't be a GE that the government are bound to lose. Do we just end up with a four year zombie lemming march to the mother of all defeats? Major on sedatives?
Possibly. I don't see any intellectual equivalents to Clarke, Heseltine, Howard and Rifkind in the current Tory party. So it could well be worse.
John Smith of course was an absolutely shameless opportunist when it came to politics - far worse than either Blair or Kinnock. He did follow NigelB's advice to always oppose, and we all know he would have won the 1997 election.
Tony Blair followed Alistair's advice, and won a massive landslide. But he did also have an extremely able SC. Harman was the weakest link and he got rid of her very fast - but as the key disaster on her brief was BSE, the French made all the running for her on that. Cook was a loose cannon, but also a superb performer when he put his mind to it (as Gaynor said). Irvine, Brown and Straw were all capable
Will boring competence as a narrative win against preternatural uselessness? Quite possibly. Starmer will likely have the second, but can he find the first?
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
I think that's true to a point, and also why opposition has to be wary of in criticising government responses not to look as though they are in effect criticising there being a pandemic at all, even unintentionally. Talk around rising unemployment and economic hits runs that risk as most people will think such is inevitable.
So theres a line to walk and picking targets is key, as with a really bad time coming the lag effect I talked about could be quite big - government could well be punished even if people dont blame them since the situation what it is.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
Bits have been good but theres plenty fodder for criticism and the sheer level of impact, among the most negative in the world, will signal the eventual public response.
As the public expect a great response rather than see it as something to reward if you merely do good, if we have.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The opposition job is indeed difficult, but sometimes an opposition should make stands. Even if it was unlikely to change government policy, Starmer could, for instance have made more of Johnson’s repeated insistence that reopening schools was 100% safe. It clearly wasn’t.
What would be the point of complaining about that? Of course schools are a transmission vector, but the various levels of lockdown across the UK have proven that the virus can be controlled while keeping the schools open. Is the Labour leader supposed to argue for closing the schools in order to keep the pubs open?
Starmer is attempting to define himself as a steady as she goes alternative to the Johnson government much as Biden did to Trump, he is not really for much just an alternative if Brexit goes wrong and the impact of Covid continues to bite on the nation's health and economic wellbeing
Well, it worked for Biden.
Thankfully for us all though Johnson is nothing like Trump.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
I see. In that case, I was obviously unfair to the hospital.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
*Please note, @Yorkcity , no references to Mr Drakeford were made in this post
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
I see. In that case, I was obviously unfair to the hospital.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
*Please note, @Yorkcity , no references to Mr Drakeford were made in this post
No problem. Your post was very kind and it was my fault for not making it clearer.
I've always liked Klopp, as a Liverpool fan I'd have to, for his personality, but it has to be said he is one of the louder whingers of the league.
He picks his battles and is consistent though.
I expect from his pressure that next time the TV contracts are drawn up it will be agreed that the Saturday 12.30 slot won't go to a team that played on Wednesday.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Besides, if you take out the noise of individual polls, it's striking how steady progress of the Conservative to Labour swing has been. In August, the score was about 44-37. Now, it's probably about 38-39, with the rest going to odds and ends. It kicked off with the exam fiasco, but hasn't really stopped since then. A few more months of this, and the government really are in trouble.
Thank you. Wasn't unexpected so not a shock and 92 is a good innings. My father is 94 and still going strong (he still drives, although shouldn't). I'm hoping the genes have been passed down the line.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Besides, if you take out the noise of individual polls, it's striking how steady progress of the Conservative to Labour swing has been. In August, the score was about 44-37. Now, it's probably about 38-39, with the rest going to odds and ends. It kicked off with the exam fiasco, but hasn't really stopped since then. A few more months of this, and the government really are in trouble.
By that point being behind would not be historically very unusual of course, if not ideal 15 months or so after an election. But the Tories have gotten so used to leads even throughout office thanks to Corbyn they get very scared of any such possibility and are liable to panic, as they appear to have spines like blancmange.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The opposition job is indeed difficult, but sometimes an opposition should make stands. Even if it was unlikely to change government policy, Starmer could, for instance have made more of Johnson’s repeated insistence that reopening schools was 100% safe. It clearly wasn’t.
What would be the point of complaining about that? Of course schools are a transmission vector, but the various levels of lockdown across the UK have proven that the virus can be controlled while keeping the schools open. Is the Labour leader supposed to argue for closing the schools in order to keep the pubs open?
He could, in all seriousness, argue that actually the sheer level of disruption caused by the virus in schools means that alternatives to full reopening can and should be sought.
He could also have made more of Nick Gibbs' recent dishonesty over the 0.2% claim. Gibb did, in fact, state that it was '0.2% with a confirmed case,' but this isn't a get out for three very good reasons. One, it still isn't correct. The actual figure is 2.2% and data manipulation has been used to get that figure down 90%. Two, it is irrelevant. If 23% are off isolating because of contacts, then you still have 23% of secondary school age children off not 0.2% or 2.2%. Even that figure, I should note, has been achieved only because of enormous pressure being brought to bear on school leaders to keep isolations to the children sat next to and in front of confirmed cases. If every confirmed case led to whole classes being sent home - which from an epidemiological point of view, it should - then attendance would be touching 50%. But third, it isn't the number of children off that determines whether schools can function, but the number of staff. And as money for supply teachers for the whole year is fast running out, and the government has given out no more, unless we have a dramatic reversal in current infection rates (as in, they are cut in half) there will come a time when schools are legally obliged to close whether the government likes it or not. Frankly, I'm slightly surprised when such evidence as we have indicates one teacher in six is off that we've made it this far.
And this is fully at the door of the government, because there are some decisions they can and should have made that would ease the situation considerably:
1) Rota systems for older year groups, Year 10 upwards. That would allow everyone to plan with some degree of certainty when they are or are not in, rather than ad hoc as at present
2) Cancel GCSEs. Nobody cares about them any more, because everyone knows they are a joke, and it would considerably ease the strains on Year 11. Instead, externally moderated coursework should be used. That also relieves pressure to keep Year 11 in and somehow cram 18 months of teaching into 6 months (as very few subjects have had content reduced) and means more effort can be placed on salvaging A-levels, NVQs and apprenticeships, which actually do matter.
3) Plan all school holidays until July to be two weeks, to try and reduce transmission among schoolchildren. That doesn't come without costs, but better to announce it and plan for it now than to announce it with 48 hours' warning.
But they won't plan this in advance, because it means admitting their strategy has failed. And as a result, they will cock it up repeatedly and cause another massive car crash.
There is definitely an opening here for Starmer and Green - if they can take it.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Besides, if you take out the noise of individual polls, it's striking how steady progress of the Conservative to Labour swing has been. In August, the score was about 44-37. Now, it's probably about 38-39, with the rest going to odds and ends. It kicked off with the exam fiasco, but hasn't really stopped since then. A few more months of this, and the government really are in trouble.
If in trouble = well behind in the polls then yes. The same as the vast majority of govts go behind mid term.
What will decide the 2024 election is the impact of Brexit and other govt policies in 2023/4 not opinion polling in 2020/21.
Which slightly contradicts the last thread header.
Isn't Belgium Pfizer's European cold store distribution centre?
I read a tweet from someone rejoicing that Pfizer's UK cold store centre was being phased out as operations were being consolidated in Belgium "because of Brexit" - until it was pointed out that Pfizer's plans long predate Brexit.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Nonsense, we changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars, thanks in part to the criticisms from the opposition.
Worked out alright for the country and Clement Attlee.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
It's an interesting (in a bad way) hypothetical.
If BoJo goes a (relative) success- Brexit and Covid put to bed, the remaining cabinet can stay, maybe some of the refuseniks come back, things aren't any worse than now.
But what if things go so badly that BoJo has to go? Hard to imagine Gove or Sunak providing the necessary reset. The Conservatives would struggle to populate a relaunched government. And there won't be a GE that the government are bound to lose. Do we just end up with a four year zombie lemming march to the mother of all defeats? Major on sedatives?
They may drag someone back off the backbenches, there’s a former chancellor up there with the required gravitas, but I doubt it.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Though even there, Boris the hack and Boris the backbench maverick have played a part in making frontline politics intolerable for good people.
When the dust settles, he's going to be a brilliant morality tale.
It's going to be difficult to push the Tories too far down no matter what Culturally they have plenty of Brexiteers that WILL stick with them no matter what Boris or Starmer do, at least for the next election. So Boris (Perhaps his succesor) has to be tremendously bad and Starmer extremely good I don't think the gap between them is biv enough to make up for the Tories fundamental advantage here at the moment
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Nonsense, we changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars, thanks in part to the criticisms from the opposition.
Worked out alright for Clement Attlee.
Well, what did for both Asquith and Chamberlain was the criticism from their own side led by Lloyd George and Amery.
I'm liking the analogy even more...Mark Harper as Leo Amery?
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
I agree to a degree that in terms of the wider public, Starmer can bide his time on policies. That said, I do think he needs to do more at this stage to define himself in terms of values, if not yet in terms of detailed policies, if only to ensure that the Tories don't step in and try and define Starmer in a way they would like.
However, although you say that in the meantime he can focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems, I think that defining himself would instead help him see off the far left, who are trying to paint him as another Blair in sheep's clothing.
So how about a speech from Starmer harking back to Aneurin Bevan's "religion of socialism is the language of priorities", along the lines that Labour's traditional values are still relevant in a modern age, while using those values to better define the current theme that the Tories are the party of waste and the wrong priorities.
It would probably help to have one early totemic policy to back that broader theme up. I would suggest that scrapping the Eastern wing of HS2 would be it, and launching a consultation on how people along the route would like the £50bn to instead be spent on things that really would help their daily lives. Invest in things that matter for the masses, not the elite. That would provide a very long shopping list of goodies to tempt voters back in all those former red wall seats.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The opposition job is indeed difficult, but sometimes an opposition should make stands. Even if it was unlikely to change government policy, Starmer could, for instance have made more of Johnson’s repeated insistence that reopening schools was 100% safe. It clearly wasn’t.
What would be the point of complaining about that? Of course schools are a transmission vector, but the various levels of lockdown across the UK have proven that the virus can be controlled while keeping the schools open. Is the Labour leader supposed to argue for closing the schools in order to keep the pubs open?
Of course not. But he could, for example, have argued for modification of term dates - an extra week at half term combined with an earlier introduction of the lockdown would have reduced cases far quicker, and might have seen us in a far better state than we are now. Putting it plainly, Johnson’s assertion that opening schools was ‘risk free’ was clearly untrue when he made it, and he should have been given a harder time over it.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Nonsense, we changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars, thanks in part to the criticisms from the opposition.
Worked out alright for Clement Attlee.
Well, what did for both Asquith and Chamberlain was the criticism from their own side led by Lloyd George and Amery.
I'm liking the analogy even more...Mark Harper as Leo Amery?
No it has to be a long standing Brexiteer, Mark Harper backed remain.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
I agree to a degree that in terms of the wider public, Starmer can bide his time. That said, I do think he needs to do more at this stage to define himself in terms of values, if not yet in terms of detailed policies, if only to ensure that the Tories don't step in and try and define Starmer in a way they would like.
However, although you say that in the meantime he can focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems, I think that defining himself would instead help him see off the far left, who are trying to paint him as another Blair in sheep's clothing.
So how about a speech from Starmer harking back to Aneurin Bevan's "religion of socialism is the language of priorities", along the lines that Labour's traditional values are still relevant in a modern age, while using those values to better define the current theme that the Tories are the party of waste and the wrong priorities.
It would probably help to have one early totemic policy to back that broader theme up. I would suggest that scrapping the Eastern wing of HS2 would be it, and launching a consultation on how people along the route would like the £50bn to instead be spent on things that really would help their daily lives. Invest in things that matter for the masses, not the elite. That would provide a very long shopping list of goodies to tempt voters back in all those former red wall seats.
Ummmm...it's Labour politicians in Nottingham and Leeds that are pushing most strongly for that Eastern leg to be built. If he called for its abandonment, particularly at the moment it's most under threat, there would be a great deal of fury.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Nonsense, we changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars, thanks in part to the criticisms from the opposition.
Worked out alright for Clement Attlee.
Well, what did for both Asquith and Chamberlain was the criticism from their own side led by Lloyd George and Amery.
I'm liking the analogy even more...Mark Harper as Leo Amery?
No it has to be a long standing Brexiteer, Mark Harper backed remain.
Did he? Having known him for several years, that surprises me.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Besides, if you take out the noise of individual polls, it's striking how steady progress of the Conservative to Labour swing has been. In August, the score was about 44-37. Now, it's probably about 38-39, with the rest going to odds and ends. It kicked off with the exam fiasco, but hasn't really stopped since then. A few more months of this, and the government really are in trouble.
I think it’s in trouble already. He’s lied to the backbenches too often and treated too many of them like shit. A review after a few weeks? That’s what he said last time. Remove the whip? Priced in since last autumn.
He’s morphed lockdown into lockdown lighter but sold it as something new. It would have been cleaner and more honest just to to extend the current arrangement from 2 December for two or three weeks - at least then the regional resentment would not have emerged with little further economic consequence. As Johnson has found, if you’re good at it you can easily bullshit your way through life, but you can’t endlessly bullshit the same people over and over. If you’re a backbencher with zero chance of preferment by this government (Damien Green for example - and there are dozens of others even amongst the newer intake) you’ve more fear of your constituents than of Johnson at this point.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
You missed David Gauke off your list. I'd put him in for Morgan who (a) took a peerage instead so she could remain a minister and (b) would have been no great loss.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Nonsense, we changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars, thanks in part to the criticisms from the opposition.
Worked out alright for Clement Attlee.
Well, what did for both Asquith and Chamberlain was the criticism from their own side led by Lloyd George and Amery.
I'm liking the analogy even more...Mark Harper as Leo Amery?
No it has to be a long standing Brexiteer, Mark Harper backed remain.
Did he? Having known him for several years, that surprises me.
He backed Remain for a variety of reasons, he was persuaded by Dave and George by the risks, and he was Chief Whip at the time of the referendum, I suspect he didn't want to cause an issue for Dave.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Nonsense, we changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars, thanks in part to the criticisms from the opposition.
Worked out alright for Clement Attlee.
Well, what did for both Asquith and Chamberlain was the criticism from their own side led by Lloyd George and Amery.
I'm liking the analogy even more...Mark Harper as Leo Amery?
No it has to be a long standing Brexiteer, Mark Harper backed remain.
Did he? Having known him for several years, that surprises me.
He backed Remain for a variety of reasons, he was persuaded by Dave and George by the risks, and he was Chief Whip at the time of the referendum, I suspect he didn't want to cause an issue for Dave.
Comments
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
Second, countries which spent more during the pandemic have been more successful. Just ask that nice Mr Trump. Or read @Nigelb's post towards the end of the last thread.
Third, it is a mistake to view the public and private sectors as antagonistic.
Biden 1.04
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.05
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.09
Biden ECV 300-329 1.08
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.06
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.07
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02
AZ Dem 1.06
GA Dem 1.06
MI Dem 1.06
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.06
WI Dem 1.06
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.08
The private sector has done the economic heavy lifting required by Covid. Lost businesses, lost jobs, lost pay, lost pensions. It will be expected to pay for it in due course. Meanwhile, Labour bleats that the public sector has been hard done by as a result of Covid. No, it really hasn't.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Asset price inflation probably owes as much to QE as interest rates. In theory, low interest rates should stimulate investment but too often this has been in assets, houses, art and so on rather than the productive economy.
Dave Prowse: Darth Vader actor dies aged 85
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55117704
Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Lily Aldridge, Miranda Kerr, Barbara Palvin and Irina Shayk -- $29,750 (£22,315)
Dolly Parton -- $1 million (£750,000)
Madonna -- $1 million (£750,000)
Wafic Saïd -- £3.33 million
Lakshmi Mittal -- £3.5 million
Rihanna -- $5 million (£4.2 million)
Sir Li Ka Shing -- £9.75 million
Jack Ma -- £11+ million
Bill Gates -- £94+ million
Details at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/society/vaccine-wars-celebrities-billionaires-battling-cut-biggest-cheques/
And Good Morning everybody.
Much worse are the ones still quietly making excuses for his character failings, like he’s some special case. Even at his lectern, Johnson seems to cast himself as the chorus to events, as opposed to the guy who decrees them. All the sighs and the winces and the “I wishes” – we are for ever being encouraged to see things as happening to the prime minister, as opposed to at his behest. He lacks the leadership qualities required to own his response.
No doubt his last defenders would claim that Johnson is simply giving people hope. If so, then he is demonstrably going the wrong way about it. Johnson has become a specialist in dashing hopes falsely raised (by him). Yet hope is hugely important, now more than at any time this past year, and a better leader – even an adequate one – should be able to inspire without misleading.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/27/boris-johnson-false-hope-lockdown-prime-minister-tier-system
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The other thing I have to state, despite being left-of-centre and anti Boris, is that they have done EXTREMELY well on ordering ahead the vaccines from 7 different potential sources. Although they pumped the UK invested Astra Zeneca they STILL pre-ordered 40 million of the Pfizer jab. Brilliant move.
I expect they will make a total horlicks of the vaccinating itself but in terms of pre-ordering it's a stupendous decision and they should take the plaudits.
F1: weirdly, no each way option for the winner market on Ladbrokes. Normally they have that, and a separate enhanced win only market.
Edited extra bit: ha, there's also the enhanced win only market, with duly longer odds.
People are smart enough to know that much as they like to have money spent on them or things they like, they are still the ones picking up the tab. Labour can try and claim "don't worry, we will only tax that rich guy over there...." only to discover that rich guy has fucked off out the jurisdiction - leaving the immobile little people having their purses picked.
After the high-risk groups have been done, the more difficult task is the general population programme. There will be lots of mopping up to do, probably a few million people who have had no recent contact with NHS, including many foreigners, homeless and young adults who have moved around a lot.
The biggest political risk IMO is grey-market American vaccines finding their way over early in the new year, leading to paid queue-jumping. Another is that the authorities find people they were looking for, for relatively minor issues or immigration status, as a result of them coming forward to be vaccinated.
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/527835-first-doses-of-pfizer-vaccine-being-flown-to-us-from-belgium
Which slightly contradicts the last thread header.
Betting Post
Mr. Sandpit, inclined to agree on both counts.
F1: backed Ferrari to double score at 3.5 (3.6 with boost). They start 11th and 12th, narrowly missing out on Q3 and have free tyre choice which may prove handy.
Pre-race ramble here: https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/11/bahrain-pre-race-2020.html
Similarly, a large portion of the (to date) £22bn spent on test and trace has been effectively wasted, in that it has had a relatively small effect on controlling the pandemic.
It became obvious months ago that a centralised laboratory system using PCR was both costly and ineffective for this purpose. (Though it’s been a useful but hideously expensive means of tracking the extent of infection.)
A smart opposition would rightly make something of this, rather than allowing the government to spin a belated look at cheap mass testing as its own innovation.
While it’s true that no other western countries which experienced similar levels of Covid in the first part of the year have done much better, that really doesn’t change the fact that we essentially wasted the summer opportunity for better planning.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
Alastair is quite right that at some point soon, Labour needs to set out an alternate view to the government’s of the way forward. That isn’t the same thing as ‘over-attacking’ the government.
In that, he is quite right. Whether Labour are up to the job is a separate question.
Over here, if you test positive for COVID-19 then get decapitated by a low-flying flamingo it's recorded as a pandemic death.
ego trippurge of the Remainers.OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
Could easily bugger the fruit harvest for next year.
https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1332864534663589891
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
You're right that they should axe him, though.
https://twitter.com/ashishkjha/status/1332890538215944193
If BoJo goes a (relative) success- Brexit and Covid put to bed, the remaining cabinet can stay, maybe some of the refuseniks come back, things aren't any worse than now.
But what if things go so badly that BoJo has to go? Hard to imagine Gove or Sunak providing the necessary reset. The Conservatives would struggle to populate a relaunched government. And there won't be a GE that the government are bound to lose.
Do we just end up with a four year zombie lemming march to the mother of all defeats? Major on sedatives?
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Good morning, everybody.
John Smith of course was an absolutely shameless opportunist when it came to politics - far worse than either Blair or Kinnock. He did follow NigelB's advice to always oppose, and we all know he would have won the 1997 election.
Tony Blair followed Alistair's advice, and won a massive landslide. But he did also have an extremely able SC. Harman was the weakest link and he got rid of her very fast - but as the key disaster on her brief was BSE, the French made all the running for her on that. Cook was a loose cannon, but also a superb performer when he put his mind to it (as Gaynor said). Irvine, Brown and Straw were all capable
Will boring competence as a narrative win against preternatural uselessness? Quite possibly. Starmer will likely have the second, but can he find the first?
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
So theres a line to walk and picking targets is key, as with a really bad time coming the lag effect I talked about could be quite big - government could well be punished even if people dont blame them since the situation what it is.
As the public expect a great response rather than see it as something to reward if you merely do good, if we have.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
*Please note, @Yorkcity , no references to Mr Drakeford were made in this post
I expect from his pressure that next time the TV contracts are drawn up it will be agreed that the Saturday 12.30 slot won't go to a team that played on Wednesday.
BoZo's bulletproof majority is built on sand. He is constantly reversing positions to try and stay in power.
Cummings departure seems to have derailed the entire agenda.
What exactly is a BoZo Government for?
(Apart from Brexit obviously, which is still giant omnishambles, even if he capitulates on a deal)
He could also have made more of Nick Gibbs' recent dishonesty over the 0.2% claim. Gibb did, in fact, state that it was '0.2% with a confirmed case,' but this isn't a get out for three very good reasons. One, it still isn't correct. The actual figure is 2.2% and data manipulation has been used to get that figure down 90%. Two, it is irrelevant. If 23% are off isolating because of contacts, then you still have 23% of secondary school age children off not 0.2% or 2.2%. Even that figure, I should note, has been achieved only because of enormous pressure being brought to bear on school leaders to keep isolations to the children sat next to and in front of confirmed cases. If every confirmed case led to whole classes being sent home - which from an epidemiological point of view, it should - then attendance would be touching 50%. But third, it isn't the number of children off that determines whether schools can function, but the number of staff. And as money for supply teachers for the whole year is fast running out, and the government has given out no more, unless we have a dramatic reversal in current infection rates (as in, they are cut in half) there will come a time when schools are legally obliged to close whether the government likes it or not. Frankly, I'm slightly surprised when such evidence as we have indicates one teacher in six is off that we've made it this far.
And this is fully at the door of the government, because there are some decisions they can and should have made that would ease the situation considerably:
1) Rota systems for older year groups, Year 10 upwards. That would allow everyone to plan with some degree of certainty when they are or are not in, rather than ad hoc as at present
2) Cancel GCSEs. Nobody cares about them any more, because everyone knows they are a joke, and it would considerably ease the strains on Year 11. Instead, externally moderated coursework should be used. That also relieves pressure to keep Year 11 in and somehow cram 18 months of teaching into 6 months (as very few subjects have had content reduced) and means more effort can be placed on salvaging A-levels, NVQs and apprenticeships, which actually do matter.
3) Plan all school holidays until July to be two weeks, to try and reduce transmission among schoolchildren. That doesn't come without costs, but better to announce it and plan for it now than to announce it with 48 hours' warning.
But they won't plan this in advance, because it means admitting their strategy has failed. And as a result, they will cock it up repeatedly and cause another massive car crash.
There is definitely an opening here for Starmer and Green - if they can take it.
What will decide the 2024 election is the impact of Brexit and other govt policies in 2023/4 not opinion polling in 2020/21.
I read a tweet from someone rejoicing that Pfizer's UK cold store centre was being phased out as operations were being consolidated in Belgium "because of Brexit" - until it was pointed out that Pfizer's plans long predate Brexit.
Worked out alright for the country and Clement Attlee.
When the dust settles, he's going to be a brilliant morality tale.
Culturally they have plenty of Brexiteers that WILL stick with them no matter what Boris or Starmer do, at least for the next election.
So Boris (Perhaps his succesor) has to be tremendously bad and Starmer extremely good
I don't think the gap between them is biv enough to make up for the Tories fundamental advantage here at the moment
I'm liking the analogy even more...Mark Harper as Leo Amery?
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/army-spies-to-take-on-antivax-militants-mfzsj66w2
I'd prefer them to use the SAS and 16 Air Assault Brigade against antivaxxers if I'm honest.
However, although you say that in the meantime he can focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems, I think that defining himself would instead help him see off the far left, who are trying to paint him as another Blair in sheep's clothing.
So how about a speech from Starmer harking back to Aneurin Bevan's "religion of socialism is the language of priorities", along the lines that Labour's traditional values are still relevant in a modern age, while using those values to better define the current theme that the Tories are the party of waste and the wrong priorities.
It would probably help to have one early totemic policy to back that broader theme up. I would suggest that scrapping the Eastern wing of HS2 would be it, and launching a consultation on how people along the route would like the £50bn to instead be spent on things that really would help their daily lives. Invest in things that matter for the masses, not the elite. That would provide a very long shopping list of goodies to tempt voters back in all those former red wall seats.
But he could, for example, have argued for modification of term dates - an extra week at half term combined with an earlier introduction of the lockdown would have reduced cases far quicker, and might have seen us in a far better state than we are now.
Putting it plainly, Johnson’s assertion that opening schools was ‘risk free’ was clearly untrue when he made it, and he should have been given a harder time over it.
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
He’s morphed lockdown into lockdown lighter but sold it as something new. It would have been cleaner and more honest just to to extend the current arrangement from 2 December for two or three weeks - at least then the regional resentment would not have emerged with little further economic consequence. As Johnson has found, if you’re good at it you can easily bullshit your way through life, but you can’t endlessly bullshit the same people over and over. If you’re a backbencher with zero chance of preferment by this government (Damien Green for example - and there are dozens of others even amongst the newer intake) you’ve more fear of your constituents than of Johnson at this point.
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1332953423860420611?s=19