Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.
SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.
At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.
To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.
Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.
I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.
The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.
An excellent post, and I share your views about Labour.
Blair's cabinet in 1997 had loads of talented politicians. Cunningham, Cook, Mowlem, Brown, Straw, Blunket, Reid, Short, Darling and more. It was like looking at the benches of a top Premier League team and seeing multiple £50 million signings ready to come on.
Given how utterly rubbish Boris is at being PM, and the lack of talent in the Cabinet, and the idiots on the Tory backbenches making trouble it is quite striking how well they are still doing in the polls. It can only be because the public look at Labour and think "they wouldn't be any better".
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
Oh God, Johnson's going to have to take a decision over which one of them to deploy.
He really isn't. That'll be up to the NHS.
LOL, the cult can be funny at times. Boris will tell his monkey what to do and Hancock will order the NHS accordingly.
You think that the NHS won't be deciding how to use their own vaccine portfolio?
They will be doing as they are told, they will not be doing the buying or much else other than the jabbing etc. Bozo , Hancock and the other cock will be running the show, with lots of pals as middlemen to mop up the cash , with NHS doing the grunt work.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Surprise surprise, grasping Tories support other grasping Tories. You lot would steal the last penny from your Grannies and brag about it.
SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.
SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.
At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.
To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.
Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.
I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.
The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.
An excellent post, and I share your views about Labour.
Blair's cabinet in 1997 had loads of talented politicians. Cunningham, Cook, Mowlem, Brown, Straw, Blunket, Reid, Short, Darling and more. It was like looking at the benches of a top Premier League team and seeing multiple £50 million signings ready to come on.
Given how utterly rubbish Boris is at being PM, and the lack of talent in the Cabinet, and the idiots on the Tory backbenches making trouble it is quite striking how well they are still doing in the polls. It can only be because the public look at Labour and think "they wouldn't be any better".
The conservative coalition is made up now of people who are cultural conservatives ie socially conservative, pro Brexit working class voters not just the well off, they are more ideologically committed to the party
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Surprise surprise, grasping Tories support other grasping Tories. You lot would steal the last penny from your Grannies and brag about it.
Bad choice of word give Newmarks' history, Malc...
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).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.
You’re right, some of them did indeed vote for the May deal. I did think Clarke voted against it though.
Clarke voted for it. He thought it was a rubbish deal, but the alternative was worse. He was of course proved correct.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
I would have said it's more likely he wanted to secure a title for the family but didn't want to leave the Commons.
I wondered about that too - out of duty or out of hope of preferment?
I used to live in Rayleigh. We used to get milk in bottles labelled "from Lord Rayleigh's farms" so I suspect they owned land in the area.
Thanks for the thought, but Lord Rayleigh's Farms dairies cover a much wider area than the family holdings. I can't find any reference to the family owning land around there; all their farms were about 20 miles further north, to the east of Chelmsford.
I didn't realise it was such a big operation. Maybe Rayleigh was the home of an ancestor going further back - just as Wellington did for his title. Or maybe they just picked somewhere in Essex they liked the sound of.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
I would have said it's more likely he wanted to secure a title for the family but didn't want to leave the Commons.
I wondered about that too - out of duty or out of hope of preferment?
I used to live in Rayleigh. We used to get milk in bottles labelled "from Lord Rayleigh's farms" so I suspect they owned land in the area.
Thanks for the thought, but Lord Rayleigh's Farms dairies cover a much wider area than the family holdings. I can't find any reference to the family owning land around there; all their farms were about 20 miles further north, to the east of Chelmsford.
I didn't realise it was such a big operation. Maybe Rayleigh was the home of an ancestor going further back - just as Wellington did for his title. Or maybe they just picked somewhere in Essex they liked the sound of.
SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.
SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.
At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.
To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.
Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.
I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.
The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.
An excellent post, and I share your views about Labour.
Blair's cabinet in 1997 had loads of talented politicians. Cunningham, Cook, Mowlem, Brown, Straw, Blunket, Reid, Short, Darling and more. It was like looking at the benches of a top Premier League team and seeing multiple £50 million signings ready to come on.
Given how utterly rubbish Boris is at being PM, and the lack of talent in the Cabinet, and the idiots on the Tory backbenches making trouble it is quite striking how well they are still doing in the polls. It can only be because the public look at Labour and think "they wouldn't be any better".
The conservative coalition is made up now of people who are cultural conservatives ie socially conservative, pro Brexit working class voters not just the well off, they are more ideologically committed to the party
Your sentence would be 100% accurate if you changed "party" to "Brexit".
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.
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).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.
You’re right, some of them did indeed vote for the May deal. I did think Clarke voted against it though.
No Clarke voted for every flavour of Brexit deal that was offered by May, Johnson and also all the indicative votes for a deal, always against no-deal and never voted for a 2nd referendum. He did vote for parliamentary scrutiny. To characterise that as doing everything to overturn the result is simply wrong. He did everything for a deal and everything against revoke and no-deal, entirely the correct course of action.
On vaccines and government performance I think it's been extremely good. The one failing is not to have backed the Imperial mRNA vaccine much earlier and with much more money. With the right kind of funding it could have been spun out of the university and been grown into a UK mRNA specialist biotech company similar to Moderna. It's not a huge deal in vaccine terms because we have for 47m confirmed deliveries of mRNA vaccine but more a failure of longer term thinking of having a domestic mRNA biotech specialist.
If we look at the Oxford/AZ vaccine it does still use pretty traditional vaccine technology and may suffer from vector immunity for future doses or variations for different vaccines which means using new vectors that need safety testing. The mRNA method does seem like a really good long term win in the vaccine war as it won't have the same drawbacks as traditional vaccine technology and we had an opportunity with the Imperial vaccine to grow a new biotech company based on it which we have passed up. I think £200-250m for a golden stake in the spin out would have been enough.
The organisation's website doesn't give details of how the poll was conducted and I find it hard to believe that a third of the population are relaxed about sexual abuse and beating of the elderly and stealing their property. I absolutely think there's a general problem about people in authority over others who aren't in a position to complain sometimes behaving horribly (examples include some care homes, prisons, and refugee centres), but I don't think many people are indifferent to it. Or am I being naive? Can anyone find the actual poll details with exact wording?
They have created something called "Safer Ageing Week" and are punting for media attention / agenda setting.
It seems to be old polling from earlier in the year judging by this:
So I think it will be lurking in an old media release or tweet or buried in Yougov somewhere 4-12 months ago.
It looks to (media cynical me) like a press release issued without any proven data to get lurid stories / headlines rolling which will make it to more reputable papers and the BBC by media-logic, then Parliament as it has been "reported in the media". Maybe even into PMQ.
To me there are red flags all over the story. No time period on the "one in 5 have been abused", dissimilar comparisons with WHO, "Unprecedented", "Absolutely Shocked", as you say no source, "Up to" on the numbers. I would add that a rentaquote from Vera Baird always makes a story questionable (you may not agree on that one).
Here is a reference to what may be the same figures in a story in the Express and Star (Brum paper) from March 24th 2020.
With this quote: "Richard Robinson, Hourglass chief executive, said: “What we have here is a recipe for disaster. Even under the best of circumstances, we know that more than a million older people experience abuse or neglect in the UK every year."
And Apparently Londoners are uniquely callous towards older people in their attitude:
"A survey carried out for the charity reveals more than a third (34%) of respondents do not believe acts of domestic violence towards an older person count as abuse.
In London, this rose to 44%.
And almost half (49%) of respondents felt that “not attending to an older person’s needs in a timely fashion” did not constitute abuse."
My guess would be that they have some mild sounding specifics, which then role up to categories which define these as "abuse".
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.
As a centrist I feel their challenge is so big that the centre is best served by them disbanding.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
I would have said it's more likely he wanted to secure a title for the family but didn't want to leave the Commons.
I wondered about that too - out of duty or out of hope of preferment?
I used to live in Rayleigh. We used to get milk in bottles labelled "from Lord Rayleigh's farms" so I suspect they owned land in the area.
Thanks for the thought, but Lord Rayleigh's Farms dairies cover a much wider area than the family holdings. I can't find any reference to the family owning land around there; all their farms were about 20 miles further north, to the east of Chelmsford.
I didn't realise it was such a big operation. Maybe Rayleigh was the home of an ancestor going further back - just as Wellington did for his title. Or maybe they just picked somewhere in Essex they liked the sound of.
That's what so odd. The family had had a big place in Terling, between Chelmsford and Witham, for at least two generations. and the Strutts (the family name) had been MP's for Maldon, and before that millers in mid Essex. Hey ho. Just trying to sort out a short talk on the chap for a u3a Zoom in a couple of weeks time.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
How on earth is Winston Churchill second in post 1945 PMs? His administration in the 1950s was not much short of a disaster. I can only presume that ignorance of history is such that a significant number of respondents did not appreciate that his finest hour was some year previous.
I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.
It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
So Starmer's Labour is still polling better than both SF and FG are doing let alone FF
You need to look at changes since the Irish GE.
Irish GE (9 Feb 2020) SF 24.5 FF 22.2 FG 20.9
Now (Red C, 25 Nov 2020) SF 30 FF 12 FG 33
Changes are SF UP 5.5, FG UP 12.1 .... and FF DOWN 10.2
(Of course, in a 2 party system, each individual party will have a higher percentage than in a 3 party system).
Anyhow, I have got things to do, so I am not going to waste my time arguing with you ... and you have things to do, Generalissimo.
Wales and Scotland won't get invaded if you just sit on your arse posting on pb.com.
You are also forgetting FG is right of FF on economics at least and SF is left of FF so it is getting squeezed, Boris is still easily able to brush off Farage who leads the only significant party to his right, even as Labour consolidates the left
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
So Starmer's Labour is still polling better than both SF and FG are doing let alone FF
...but then so is Johnson.
Early days yet. Massive potential polling boost for Boris' vaccine, followed by disappointment that roll-out takes time, and Covid restrictions continue well into next year. Then, when Philip Thompson's "v" shaped recovery fails to materialise the Conservatives are in trouble.
Starmer may have the charisma of John Major, but don't forget John Major won an election.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.
This is true. And compounded by the reality that Clegg's light shone bright and after Clegg was only darkness. Farron, nice but crap. Cable too old to cut through and many of his ideas had been soundly rejected by the electorate in 2015. Swinson? Please...
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.
Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
I’m sure his renowned fidelity and loyalty to his many women will make him do exactly what she wishes.
Yep, this Header addresses what is perhaps Labour's biggest political challenge. Under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell they offered a clear and radical Left alternative to the Conservatives. If that is now junked (on account of GE19 supposedly proving the electorate will never buy such a thing) they need another one and this is not at all straightforward. Clear and radical alternatives to the Conservatives do not grow on trees. They're even harder to come by if anything looking too much like socialism is ruled out.
Or then again, maybe this analysis is wrong. Maybe they don't need a radically different vision and set of policies to the Cons in order to beat them at the next election. Maybe after years of jingoistic incompetence and rank cronyism, just being not the Conservatives plus Keir Starmer looking capable and like a viable PM will be enough. Probably will be, come to think of it.
Of course what we really want is the best of both worlds. The vision and the policies for sweeping change articulated by a Labour leader who exudes such decency and competence that he or she neither turns off nor frightens floating voters. That's the sweet spot. Is it possible? Yes, I believe it is. But probably not quite yet. Probably atm it's a choice between radicalism and electability. In which case there is little doubt in my mind that the latter will be the priority.
How on earth is Winston Churchill second in post 1945 PMs? His administration in the 1950s was not much short of a disaster. I can only presume that ignorance of history is such that a significant number of respondents did not appreciate that his finest hour was some year previous.
I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.
The organisation's website doesn't give details of how the poll was conducted and I find it hard to believe that a third of the population are relaxed about sexual abuse and beating of the elderly and stealing their property. I absolutely think there's a general problem about people in authority over others who aren't in a position to complain sometimes behaving horribly (examples include some care homes, prisons, and refugee centres), but I don't think many people are indifferent to it. Or am I being naive? Can anyone find the actual poll details with exact wording?
They have created something called "Safer Ageing Week" and are punting for media attention / agenda setting.
It seems to be old polling from earlier in the year judging by this:
So I think it will be lurking in an old media release or tweet or buried in Yougov somewhere 4-12 months ago.
It looks to (media cynical me) like a press release issued without any proven data to get lurid stories / headlines rolling which will make it to more reputable papers and the BBC by media-logic, then Parliament as it has been "reported in the media". Maybe even into PMQ.
To me there are red flags all over the story. No time period on the "one in 5 have been abused", dissimilar comparisons with WHO, "Unprecedented", "Absolutely Shocked", as you say no source, "Up to" on the numbers. I would add that a rentaquote from Vera Baird always makes a story questionable (you may not agree on that one).
Here is a reference to what may be the same figures in a story in the Express and Star (Brum paper) from March 24th 2020.
With this quote: "Richard Robinson, Hourglass chief executive, said: “What we have here is a recipe for disaster. Even under the best of circumstances, we know that more than a million older people experience abuse or neglect in the UK every year."
And Apparently Londoners are uniquely callous towards older people in their attitude:
"A survey carried out for the charity reveals more than a third (34%) of respondents do not believe acts of domestic violence towards an older person count as abuse.
In London, this rose to 44%.
And almost half (49%) of respondents felt that “not attending to an older person’s needs in a timely fashion” did not constitute abuse."
My guess would be that they have some mild sounding specifics, which then role up to categories which define these as "abuse".
Bingo headline.
I think I found it, or at least the name. I think you want the "Growing Old in the UK Survey", which has a poll fof 2494 people from an unknown date.
Referenced in this write up of a press release by KCL:
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.
Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
I’m sure his renowned fidelity and loyalty to his many women will make him do exactly what she wishes.
"Access to the leavers of power" is brilliant.
Missed Dura's comment the first time around - brilliant! And yes, isn't the problem that Shagger's "leaver of power" gets inserted into far too many places?
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
According to the Complete Peerage article "Rayleigh of Terling Place", Joseph Holden Strutt wrote in a posthumous letter to his daughters that he was offered a peerage but he had "through life declined personal honours" and requested it to be granted to his wife. He added that he had since repented of this decision: "I wished honor to my family, but I find it should have been in my own person."
The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.
As a centrist I feel their challenge is so big that the centre is best served by them disbanding.
We had this debate yesterday with you starting it the same way no point disbanding there’s no where to go to.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Be that as it may, he also appears to have behaved in ways that just aren't appropriate for a man in his position.
If he wants to serve, great. There are plenty of ways of doing that that don't confer prestige, power or wealth. There are plenty of people with similar or greater talents who accept that as their lot.
Otherwise, it really does look like one rule for mates and another for plebs.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.
It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.
Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
How on earth is Winston Churchill second in post 1945 PMs? His administration in the 1950s was not much short of a disaster. I can only presume that ignorance of history is such that a significant number of respondents did not appreciate that his finest hour was some year previous.
I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
He's a degenerate and security risk.
Sounds like he'll fit right in.
It wasn't just one 'error of judgement' was it. And what he did was very unpleasant. Must say I met him a couple of times; had a Care Home problem, but when he realised it couldn't be used to attack Labour he wasn't very interested.
@ydoethur from your earlier post, I like the suggestion of dumping GCSEs completey. I guess the question is what you replace it with, I've heard lots of people talk about 4 year A-Levels but I'm not sure how you get kids to have a base level of maths and English that way.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
So Starmer's Labour is still polling better than both SF and FG are doing let alone FF
...but then so is Johnson.
Early days yet. Massive potential polling boost for Boris' vaccine, followed by disappointment that roll-out takes time, and Covid restrictions continue well into next year. Then, when Philip Thompson's "v" shaped recovery fails to materialise the Conservatives are in trouble.
Starmer may have the charisma of John Major, but don't forget John Major won an election.
And there is always the change from BINO to Brexit in reality.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
At least he’s changed it up, the Germans are the good guys in the second extract. Maybe he really wants a deal and is buttering up Merkel.
It's painful - even the otherwise serious Government statement on December lockdown blathers about "the cavalry" being "almost here". There's absolutely a place for after-dinner wit and metaphor. But not in Government statements.
I think that is rather over the top. I think the use of flowery of emotive cliches can be overdone and I personally find Boris' style tired at this point, but I also find the level of criticism of the use of pretty standard cliches to be bizarre, like when some people (I dare say not all) got faux outraged about use of militaristic cliches to describe the virus response.
when they are a substitute for rational thought, and are deployed by the gross, criticism isn’t bizarre at all. Peak moment was at his recent press conference when he said of the virus that “we have our foot on its neck”, and then managed to stop himself halfway through saying “and we have it just where we want it”.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.
It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.
Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
As above.
Well we don't really know what the post-COVID economy looks like, if we get to 2024 with the economy growing and above where we end 2020 I think most people will consider that as a success and give the government credit for getting us back to health. You can't judge a post-COVID economy until we actually get there and part of that is vaccine roll out where we seem very well placed, the faster we roll the vaccine out to all age groups the faster we can reopen hospitality, tourism and venue based business such as conferences and sports.
One of the reasons the reasons England is in the running to host Euro 2020/21 is because the government thinks we can have the nation basically all vaccinated by then and allow full crowds at venues rather than empty or mostly empty stadiums that UEFA are planning on with the "festival of football" thing they're talking about. At the moment a lot of it hasn't been factored into the numbers.
This is going to screw up a few networks isn't it?
Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.
New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing
New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.
The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.
In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.
Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.
A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.
An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.
The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.
A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."
So who are the 3 jokers? Boris plus 2? Blair and Gladwin two of the aces, who are the others? Churchill?
I am not familiar with Mr Gladwin's administration, which is surprising given how capable he clearly was. I would have guessed Lloyd George and Thatcher given who created it.
Three jokers - Goderich, Brown, Johnson.
Edit - I would never have dared make Pitt the Younger the queen. But Dale might get away with it...
The other aces were Churchill and Walpole. Thatcher and May were queens as well.
How on earth did they manage to select only four knaves ?
This is going to screw up a few networks isn't it?
Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.
New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing
New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.
The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.
In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.
Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.
A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.
An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.
The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.
A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."
It's a good idea. The old deadline was a joke and BT and Three were talking about stockpiling Huawei equipment. This takes that route away from them and makes them spend the money on a long term solution. Three in particular will struggle though.
Major tied with Cameron on 2%. Would have expected Major to be well ahead, but he seems to have trashed his reputation with his Remain-based commentary in recent years.
And Tories lead Labour 4-1 on pointless PMs. Although a fair chance that Cameron joins them before too long. He really is heading from hero to zero.....
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.
Sorry to hear about your uncle, it sounds a peaceful death.
It can be hard to untangle causation as you say, and in my Trust we have had several ward based outbreaks. Tracing doesn't often find a source.
All overnight admissions get tested for covid, no matter what they are in for, and I believe that is national policy. That would be why both your uncle and the other patient were tested.
The other possibility is that it was Covid-19 that caused the low blood pressure and internal bleeding. It is a recognised as a presentation. Covid-19 is much more than a respiratory virus.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
According to the Complete Peerage article "Rayleigh of Terling Place", Joseph Holden Strutt wrote in a posthumous letter to his daughters that he was offered a peerage but he had "through life declined personal honours" and requested it to be granted to his wife. He added that he had since repented of this decision: "I wished honor to my family, but I find it should have been in my own person."
The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.
Much obliged. I owe you! Incidentally, Rayleigh Castle no longer exists, and didn't really in the 18th C. Fell into disuse late in the 13th C, and later on it was used for building materials in the town. (According to Wikipedia.). It is still talked about though, as Rayleigh Mount. I lived not far away in the 50's.
This is going to screw up a few networks isn't it?
Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.
New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing
New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.
The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.
In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.
Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.
A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.
An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.
The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.
A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."
It's a good idea. The old deadline was a joke and BT and Three were talking about stockpiling Huawei equipment. This takes that route away from them and makes them spend the money on a long term solution. Three in particular will struggle though.
I don't think consumers have quite twigged that this Huawei ban really screws EE.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
According to the Complete Peerage article "Rayleigh of Terling Place", Joseph Holden Strutt wrote in a posthumous letter to his daughters that he was offered a peerage but he had "through life declined personal honours" and requested it to be granted to his wife. He added that he had since repented of this decision: "I wished honor to my family, but I find it should have been in my own person."
The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.
I wish he had picked an easier name to spell: he has an significant number of important bits of physics named after him.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.
As a centrist I feel their challenge is so big that the centre is best served by them disbanding.
We had this debate yesterday with you starting it the same way no point disbanding there’s no where to go to.
Fair enough I will drop it for a while, but before I do I will point out that the lack of positive responses about the LDs future suggests I am right.
Major tied with Cameron on 2%. Would have expected Major to be well ahead, but he seems to have trashed his reputation with his Remain-based commentary in recent years.
And Tories lead Labour 4-1 on pointless PMs. Although a fair chance that Cameron joins them before too long. He really is heading from hero to zero.....
The polls rubbish who is still alive o judge Churchill? Thatcher has been written into folklore as something she clearly wasn’t, each of them faced different situations and they may have been handled better by others.best read with a pinch of salt.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.
It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.
Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
As above.
Well we don't really know what the post-COVID economy looks like, if we get to 2024 with the economy growing and above where we end 2020 I think most people will consider that as a success and give the government credit for getting us back to health. You can't judge a post-COVID economy until we actually get there and part of that is vaccine roll out where we seem very well placed, the faster we roll the vaccine out to all age groups the faster we can reopen hospitality, tourism and venue based business such as conferences and sports.
One of the reasons the reasons England is in the running to host Euro 2020/21 is because the government thinks we can have the nation basically all vaccinated by then and allow full crowds at venues rather than empty or mostly empty stadiums that UEFA are planning on with the "festival of football" thing they're talking about. At the moment a lot of it hasn't been factored into the numbers.
What did we learn from the 2008 crash? It was generally considered that under the circumstances Brown and Darling handled the run on the banks as well as they could. The voters disagreed.
I am not pointing the finger at you Max. However, I find the earnest blind-faith optimism displayed by the.Boris /Brexit faithful that Brexit and Covid will have no more than the impact of an economic flesh-wound, as quite charming, in a concerned kind of a way.
In all fairness to Sunak, he has already smelled the coffee.
Starmer's lack-of-principle problem is exemplified by today's BBC story that "Labour" (doesn't say exactly who) have called for the suspension of peak time rail fares before Christmas. Anyone with a brain understands that differential fares are designed to smooth out demand throughout the day and optimise return on fixed investment. Only Labour seems to believe that by abolishing peak fares travel chaos will be "avoided".
That’s really interesting, I never knew that dry ice was considered dangerous goods on a plane. Also of note that a plane full of vaccines has several tonnes of packaging, which adds costs to the logistics operation.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
For a brief moment from 2010 the LDs had lots of voters, lots of MPs and real power. Those who voted for them in 2010 proved in due course that they were in large number completely unable to comprehend what the compromises and realities of power involve - condemning the LDs for not implementing a tuition fees policy which was in the LD manifesto for an election in which they came third. For a moment the MPs looked more grown up than average. If their voters had been grown up as well the LDs would have a chance now. Their feeble supporters blew it. They only want opposition. They are no better than the Labour left.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
This is going to screw up a few networks isn't it?
Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.
New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing
New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.
The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.
In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.
Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.
A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.
An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.
The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.
A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."
It's a good idea. The old deadline was a joke and BT and Three were talking about stockpiling Huawei equipment. This takes that route away from them and makes them spend the money on a long term solution. Three in particular will struggle though.
I don't think consumers have quite twigged that this Huawei ban really screws EE.
It's EE's own fault. They knew this was coming ever since the old decision on the "core" 4G network was made. Vodafone, O2 and Three all started making other investment plans on that basis, O2 specifically removed all existing Huawei equipment from 4G to ensure their 5G rollout would be smooth and Vodafone started that process while Three started talking to Ericsson about independent 5G rather than building on top of the existing 4G network. BT were slow at making the decision and now they're going to pay the price for it, they tried to politically sway the decision making process and they got the original deadline and the 2027 removal deadline from that but ultimately they weren't able to prevent the removal of Huawei.
I also think this has been done to show the Chinese that Trump leaving the White House has no bearing on our stance and we'll do what suits the UK, which is dumping Huawei from the economy and barring China as much as possible.
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.
It's really appalling. One of the areas one would expect to really strengthen in the NHS due to Covid is effective cleaning systems.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
How on earth is Winston Churchill second in post 1945 PMs? His administration in the 1950s was not much short of a disaster. I can only presume that ignorance of history is such that a significant number of respondents did not appreciate that his finest hour was some year previous.
I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
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).
Starmer's lack-of-principle problem is exemplified by today's BBC story that "Labour" (doesn't say exactly who) have called for the suspension of peak time rail fares before Christmas. Anyone with a brain understands that differential fares are designed to smooth out demand throughout the day and optimise return on fixed investment. Only Labour seems to believe that by abolishing peak fares travel chaos will be "avoided".
Do we just end up with a four year zombie lemming march to the mother of all defeats? Major on sedatives?
We are practically there already.
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)
That is why the emphasis is on the Culture War bollocks. BoZo and the Conservatives have nothing else left.
Round here they are all furiously doing Pavement Politics, as our Tory MP used to when he was a Labour Councillor, and our Indy Council Leader used to when he was a Lib Dem
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
For a brief moment from 2010 the LDs had lots of voters, lots of MPs and real power. Those who voted for them in 2010 proved in due course that they were in large number completely unable to comprehend what the compromises and realities of power involve - condemning the LDs for not implementing a tuition fees policy which was in the LD manifesto for an election in which they came third. For a moment the MPs looked more grown up than average. If their voters had been grown up as well the LDs would have a chance now. Their feeble supporters blew it. They only want opposition. They are no better than the Labour left.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.
It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.
Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?
'No, Mexicanpete, no: Not even the first of the Britons can learn His British history in the future tense. Not even to serve your political turn; Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
As above.
Well we don't really know what the post-COVID economy looks like, if we get to 2024 with the economy growing and above where we end 2020 I think most people will consider that as a success and give the government credit for getting us back to health. You can't judge a post-COVID economy until we actually get there and part of that is vaccine roll out where we seem very well placed, the faster we roll the vaccine out to all age groups the faster we can reopen hospitality, tourism and venue based business such as conferences and sports.
One of the reasons the reasons England is in the running to host Euro 2020/21 is because the government thinks we can have the nation basically all vaccinated by then and allow full crowds at venues rather than empty or mostly empty stadiums that UEFA are planning on with the "festival of football" thing they're talking about. At the moment a lot of it hasn't been factored into the numbers.
What did we learn from the 2008 crash? It was generally considered that under the circumstances Brown and Darling handled the run on the banks as well as they could. The voters disagreed.
I am not pointing the finger at you Max. However, I find the earnest blind-faith optimism displayed by the.Boris /Brexit faithful that Brexit and Covid will have no more than the impact of an economic flesh-wound, as quite charming, in a concerned kind of a way.
In all fairness to Sunak, he has already smelled the coffee.
It's not optimism, there's also a key difference. Bank runs in the UK was down to badly run and badly regulated banks which falls at the feet of the UK government. A pandemic originating in China doesn't.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
According to the Complete Peerage article "Rayleigh of Terling Place", Joseph Holden Strutt wrote in a posthumous letter to his daughters that he was offered a peerage but he had "through life declined personal honours" and requested it to be granted to his wife. He added that he had since repented of this decision: "I wished honor to my family, but I find it should have been in my own person."
The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.
I wish he had picked an easier name to spell: he has an significant number of important bits of physics named after him.
Described in one article I've found as the Last of the Great Victorian Polymaths! A u3a on-line Group to which I belong has asked members to give a short talk on 'Great Scientists where I Live' and one of the Groups to which I belong covers Terling. Clearly Rayleigh is one of the Greats! The family seems to have rather gone back to it's agricultural and commercial roots now.
Starmer's lack-of-principle problem is exemplified by today's BBC story that "Labour" (doesn't say exactly who) have called for the suspension of peak time rail fares before Christmas. Anyone with a brain understands that differential fares are designed to smooth out demand throughout the day and optimise return on fixed investment. Only Labour seems to believe that by abolishing peak fares travel chaos will be "avoided".
They do, but with the requirement for social distancing on trains, the peak fare thing is going to lead to people packing off peak trains which will spread the virus.
Considering the government is picking up the tab for the rail companies, it won't cost the TOCs anything.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
Surprise surprise, grasping Tories support other grasping Tories. You lot would steal the last penny from your Grannies and brag about it.
Bad choice of word give Newmarks' history, Malc...
Yes I was talking in the monetary sense, not knowing his background.
I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.
Well Netflix do have form for kowtowing to a nation's monarchy, Dowden knows that.
Netflix has blocked an episode of a comedy show which is critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his alleged role in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from streaming in Saudi Arabia after officials from the Kingdom complained.
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.
It's really appalling. One of the areas one would expect to really strengthen in the NHS due to Covid is effective cleaning systems.
Sorry to hear of your loss kjh.
Extensive cleaning is going on, but there is little evidence for fomites* as a major factor in transmission. Covid-19 is spread by aerosol and droplets. Hospital outbreaks tend to come back to asymptomatic staff.
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).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.
You’re right, some of them did indeed vote for the May deal. I did think Clarke voted against it though.
Clarke voted for it. He thought it was a rubbish deal, but the alternative was worse. He was of course proved correct.
He was an interesting counterpoint to the people so angry that they sought to reverse it all (who persuaded me in the end, but only as the deal had been killed by then so the options were more limited) in that he did not relax one iota his criticism of the whole thing, nor did he suggest some nebulous will of the people overrid his concerns, but he could see the dangers much more clearly than the resistors.
Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities
I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.
Well Netflix do have form for kowtowing to a nation's monarchy, Dowden knows that.
Netflix has blocked an episode of a comedy show which is critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his alleged role in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from streaming in Saudi Arabia after officials from the Kingdom complained.
The British Royal family has as much democratic legitimacy as the Saudi Royal family.
Yes, a sane comparison indeed. It's not as though legislative representatives can and do hold republcian views in this country and could abolish it if they wanted with no recourse for the monarchy to resist in terms of power.
This is going to screw up a few networks isn't it?
Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.
New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing
New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.
The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.
In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.
Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.
A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.
An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.
The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.
A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."
It's a good idea. The old deadline was a joke and BT and Three were talking about stockpiling Huawei equipment. This takes that route away from them and makes them spend the money on a long term solution. Three in particular will struggle though.
I don't think consumers have quite twigged that this Huawei ban really screws EE.
Yeah, but at least stopping the 5G rollout will put an end to the pandemic 🤪
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
For a brief moment from 2010 the LDs had lots of voters, lots of MPs and real power. Those who voted for them in 2010 proved in due course that they were in large number completely unable to comprehend what the compromises and realities of power involve - condemning the LDs for not implementing a tuition fees policy which was in the LD manifesto for an election in which they came third. For a moment the MPs looked more grown up than average. If their voters had been grown up as well the LDs would have a chance now. Their feeble supporters blew it. They only want opposition. They are no better than the Labour left.
That sounds suspiciously voter blamey.
Wouldn't it be simpler in that case if the LDs
Dissolved the people and
Elected another?
Blaming the voters is not always unreasonable of course, it just doesn't help as one still has to deal with them.
I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.
Well Netflix do have form for kowtowing to a nation's monarchy, Dowden knows that.
Netflix has blocked an episode of a comedy show which is critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his alleged role in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from streaming in Saudi Arabia after officials from the Kingdom complained.
The British Royal family has as much democratic legitimacy as the Saudi Royal family.
Yes, a sane comparison indeed. It's not as though legislative representatives can and do hold republcian views in this country and could abolish it if they wanted with no recourse for the monarchy to resist in terms of power.
Yanks overestimate the power of the Queen of England (sic).
It does show that the acting opposite him must have been pretty good (comparitively - the acting in the original trilogy was, frankly, not very good), like those acting opposite Andy Serkis in the Planet of the Apes trilogy.
I really do not go along with Alastair's premise here. To move from being circa 25% adrift of the Tories in March and April to a position where Labour is ahead in several polls represents a significant advance for Starmer - and one which few were predicting last Spring or earlier. Labour is far better placed than a year into the 1987 parliament under Kinnock - or a year into the 1959 parliament under Gaitskell. It is matching the performance of the Tories under Heath in early 1967 - a year into the 1966 parliament.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.
For a brief moment from 2010 the LDs had lots of voters, lots of MPs and real power. Those who voted for them in 2010 proved in due course that they were in large number completely unable to comprehend what the compromises and realities of power involve - condemning the LDs for not implementing a tuition fees policy which was in the LD manifesto for an election in which they came third. For a moment the MPs looked more grown up than average. If their voters had been grown up as well the LDs would have a chance now. Their feeble supporters blew it. They only want opposition. They are no better than the Labour left.
That sounds suspiciously voter blamey.
Wouldn't it be simpler in that case if the LDs
Dissolved the people and
Elected another?
Blaming the voters is not always unreasonable of course, it just doesn't help as one still has to deal with them.
Aye, though I'm just as comfortable with 'the politicians have spoke, the stupid bastards' as I am with 'the people have spoken, the bastards'.
Starmer's lack-of-principle problem is exemplified by today's BBC story that "Labour" (doesn't say exactly who) have called for the suspension of peak time rail fares before Christmas. Anyone with a brain understands that differential fares are designed to smooth out demand throughout the day and optimise return on fixed investment. Only Labour seems to believe that by abolishing peak fares travel chaos will be "avoided".
They do, but with the requirement for social distancing on trains, the peak fare thing is going to lead to people packing off peak trains which will spread the virus.
Considering the government is picking up the tab for the rail companies, it won't cost the TOCs anything.
Market economics have gone out of the window.
Not to mention the rush hour in and out of London quietens over Christmas even in normal years, let alone this pandemic.
Comments
Blair's cabinet in 1997 had loads of talented politicians. Cunningham, Cook, Mowlem, Brown, Straw, Blunket, Reid, Short, Darling and more. It was like looking at the benches of a top Premier League team and seeing multiple £50 million signings ready to come on.
Given how utterly rubbish Boris is at being PM, and the lack of talent in the Cabinet, and the idiots on the Tory backbenches making trouble it is quite striking how well they are still doing in the polls. It can only be because the public look at Labour and think "they wouldn't be any better".
The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.
But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.
Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.
Latest UK poll Lab 38 Cons 37
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40098056.html
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1332812271026843648?s=20
So Starmer's Labour is still polling better than both SF and FG are doing let alone FF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Strutt_(1727–1816)
If we look at the Oxford/AZ vaccine it does still use pretty traditional vaccine technology and may suffer from vector immunity for future doses or variations for different vaccines which means using new vectors that need safety testing. The mRNA method does seem like a really good long term win in the vaccine war as it won't have the same drawbacks as traditional vaccine technology and we had an opportunity with the Imperial vaccine to grow a new biotech company based on it which we have passed up. I think £200-250m for a golden stake in the spin out would have been enough.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/03/24/coronavirus-isolation-pressure-cooker-environment-for-abuse-of-elderly/
With this quote:
"Richard Robinson, Hourglass chief executive, said: “What we have here is a recipe for disaster. Even under the best of circumstances, we know that more than a million older people experience abuse or neglect in the UK every year."
And Apparently Londoners are uniquely callous towards older people in their attitude:
"A survey carried out for the charity reveals more than a third (34%) of respondents do not believe acts of domestic violence towards an older person count as abuse.
In London, this rose to 44%.
And almost half (49%) of respondents felt that “not attending to an older person’s needs in a timely fashion” did not constitute abuse."
My guess would be that they have some mild sounding specifics, which then role up to categories which define these as "abuse".
Bingo headline.
'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'
Hey ho. Just trying to sort out a short talk on the chap for a u3a Zoom in a couple of weeks time.
Irish GE (9 Feb 2020) SF 24.5 FF 22.2 FG 20.9
Now (Red C, 25 Nov 2020) SF 30 FF 12 FG 33
Changes are SF UP 5.5, FG UP 12.1 .... and FF DOWN 10.2
(Of course, in a 2 party system, each individual party will have a higher percentage than in a 3 party system).
Anyhow, I have got things to do, so I am not going to waste my time arguing with you ... and you have things to do, Generalissimo.
Wales and Scotland won't get invaded if you just sit on your arse posting on pb.com.
I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.
It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.
Early days yet. Massive potential polling boost for Boris' vaccine, followed by disappointment that roll-out takes time, and Covid restrictions continue well into next year. Then, when Philip Thompson's "v" shaped recovery fails to materialise the Conservatives are in trouble.
Starmer may have the charisma of John Major, but don't forget John Major won an election.
Or then again, maybe this analysis is wrong. Maybe they don't need a radically different vision and set of policies to the Cons in order to beat them at the next election. Maybe after years of jingoistic incompetence and rank cronyism, just being not the Conservatives plus Keir Starmer looking capable and like a viable PM will be enough. Probably will be, come to think of it.
Of course what we really want is the best of both worlds. The vision and the policies for sweeping change articulated by a Labour leader who exudes such decency and competence that he or she neither turns off nor frightens floating voters. That's the sweet spot. Is it possible? Yes, I believe it is. But probably not quite yet. Probably atm it's a choice between radicalism and electability. In which case there is little doubt in my mind that the latter will be the priority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5stftd5qv3M
Referenced in this write up of a press release by KCL:
https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/socialcareworkforce/2020/06/08/action-on-elder-abuse-is-now-hourglass/
The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.
-
We had this debate yesterday with you starting it the same way no point disbanding there’s no where to go to.If he wants to serve, great. There are plenty of ways of doing that that don't confer prestige, power or wealth. There are plenty of people with similar or greater talents who accept that as their lot.
Otherwise, it really does look like one rule for mates and another for plebs.
Must say I met him a couple of times; had a Care Home problem, but when he realised it couldn't be used to attack Labour he wasn't very interested.
https://twitter.com/raymonddelauney/status/1076888186188713984
Here is a reference to the "Growing Old in the UK" report in the Scotsman from 24th March, again based on advanced snippets.
https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-fears-raised-about-increased-abuse-elderly-2513830
It's all Churnalism, based on stuff that may or may not be true, but we are not allowed to think about it for ourselves from the source.
I would guess they may release it this week.
Peak moment was at his recent press conference when he said of the virus that “we have our foot on its neck”, and then managed to stop himself halfway through saying “and we have it just where we want it”.
One of the reasons the reasons England is in the running to host Euro 2020/21 is because the government thinks we can have the nation basically all vaccinated by then and allow full crowds at venues rather than empty or mostly empty stadiums that UEFA are planning on with the "festival of football" thing they're talking about. At the moment a lot of it hasn't been factored into the numbers.
Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.
New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing
New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.
The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.
In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.
Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.
A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.
An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.
The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.
A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/28/huawei-5g-ban-brought-forward-september/
https://twitter.com/BrianSumers/status/1332765684363788288?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSm9DDxQv8E
And Tories lead Labour 4-1 on pointless PMs. Although a fair chance that Cameron joins them before too long. He really is heading from hero to zero.....
It can be hard to untangle causation as you say, and in my Trust we have had several ward based outbreaks. Tracing doesn't often find a source.
All overnight admissions get tested for covid, no matter what they are in for, and I believe that is national policy. That would be why both your uncle and the other patient were tested.
The other possibility is that it was Covid-19 that caused the low blood pressure and internal bleeding. It is a recognised as a presentation. Covid-19 is much more than a respiratory virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7446989/
I am not pointing the finger at you Max. However, I find the earnest blind-faith optimism displayed by the.Boris /Brexit faithful that Brexit and Covid will have no more than the impact of an economic flesh-wound, as quite charming, in a concerned kind of a way.
In all fairness to Sunak, he has already smelled the coffee.
Starmer's lack-of-principle problem is exemplified by today's BBC story that "Labour" (doesn't say exactly who) have called for the suspension of peak time rail fares before Christmas. Anyone with a brain understands that differential fares are designed to smooth out demand throughout the day and optimise return on fixed investment. Only Labour seems to believe that by abolishing peak fares travel chaos will be "avoided".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55118891
Which I pretty much did tbf.
I also think this has been done to show the Chinese that Trump leaving the White House has no bearing on our stance and we'll do what suits the UK, which is dumping Huawei from the economy and barring China as much as possible.
Sorry to hear of your loss kjh.
Not sure if that constitutes "degenerate". Unless you apply the same to PBers with similar age gaps.
Anything else?
He's someone who doesn't cope well with stress by his own admission.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29585203
Ergo he's a degenerate and security risk.
Remember the Chinese and Russians are trying to steal our vaccines, they'd clearly target someone like Newmark.
Wouldn't it be simpler in that case if the LDs
Dissolved the people and
Elected another?
I also don't think Boris will be there in 2024.
Clearly Rayleigh is one of the Greats!
The family seems to have rather gone back to it's agricultural and commercial roots now.
Considering the government is picking up the tab for the rail companies, it won't cost the TOCs anything.
Market economics have gone out of the window.
Netflix has blocked an episode of a comedy show which is critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his alleged role in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from streaming in Saudi Arabia after officials from the Kingdom complained.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/01/middleeast/netflix-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-jamal-khashoggi-intl/index.html
The British Royal family has as much democratic legitimacy as the Saudi Royal family.
That's easy:
The gentleman in Whitehall is always right.
*microbial contaminated objects
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18906901.10-000-turkeys-culled-farm-near-northallerton-avian-flu-outbreak/