So you think we should have government-by-opnion-polls?
That's your response when someone posts the result of an opinion poll?
Looking forward to "So you're a paedophile" when someone posts a news item about paedophilia and "So you're a Nazi" when someone mentions the war.
No, it's the response when an opinion poll says something he doesn't like.
My personal favourite is when he is allowed to provide meaning to his vote for BXP - which was voting for Farage and his party and he knows it - but when others provide meaning they're not allowed.
Sheep must be superspreaders. What other explanation is there?
What are the sharny white fluffy things going 'baah' on the hill out the back here in Scotland, then?!
The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
Not yet:
While we can't be sure that the new strain originated in the UK, the obvious spread out from the Isle of Sheppy or thereabouts must be fairly strong evidence that it did. Either that or it was brought into the UK by one of the very early cases.
If it had become established elsewhere and then spread to the UK, you'd expect to see a much homogeneous distribution of cases, wouldn't you?
That graph is weird no?
If its the teenage mutant Ninja turtle strain we think it is, it should have spread fast everywhere it seeds (a bit like a weed?)
But....it hasn't?
It seeded in Scotland and South Wales but no turbo growth?
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
I don't live in South Wales.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
I would like your post but not sure like is appropriate with anything to do with Drakeford
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
Tories call Blair a Tory because it makes them feel more comfortable about having voted for a solidly centre-left politician. It is a load of nonsense of course.
It’s suits the right and the fat left mythology to call Blair a Tory. He wasn’t and isn’t a Tory.
“ solidly centre-left politician‘. 🤣
He inherited privatised, deregulated economy from thatcher major, reversed not one bit of that, and privatised even more.
He privatised hospitals.
He took schools out of LEA control.
He sexed up a document to take the country to war on basis of lies, a war that has killed more people globally than covid has managed.
He wasted billions of tax payers money on failed projects like emergency control centres.
He boasted of investment in public services that were in fact silly PFI contracts to be paid for on the never never. £120 for a .69p lightbulb anyone?
He done more than any PM to remove U.K. from EU, by talking up the opportunities of globalisation and doing nothing for the damage globalisation was doing to our country. Tough on take back control, tough on the cause of take back control. Tough on Blair.
Oh of course, ignore all that, what really makes him the lefty and darling of all lefties is he made hunting with hounds illegal. 😂
PFI was a scam, I agree. More Brown than Blair, though, and started under the Tories. But your last sentence (unless sarcastic) is very wrong. Tony most certainly is NOT the darling of all lefties. Many of my political persuasion - although not me as it happens - hate him with a passion. I have him on the right side of the ledger and do not need to go into the ins and outs of his policies in office to explain the reason for that. He gave me what was quite simply the best night of my life on 1st May 1997. Tories out after what seemed like an eternity - was an eternity - and furthermore I won a packet on the spreads backing the landslide (which all the "shrewdies" were not believing until it happened).
I think you hit the nail on the head of what is wrong. Thrown out of office, but the philosophy still in power? And that was good enough for you? Why?
We don’t need politicians like Blair, brown, all new labour, only interested in going up the greasy poll. People should go into politics to stand on values and win on values. Otherwise it will never change.
Capitalism needs to be reset now because of Blair and Brown, not in spite of them.
No, he should have been more radical. Totally. But I'm not a Blair hater. He won that 97 landslide and it was a great and cleansing political event. Plus after so long with the Cons in, the power of Murdoch and the press, the consensus that Labour could not be trusted with the wallet, there was a paranoia amongst NL of not scaring middle England and getting kicked out again, hence "sticking to Tory spending plans", no tax rises, all of that nonsense, which put them in a self-sealed box. I have sympathy for that even though I wish it had been otherwise.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Daniel Hannan has been wrong on almost everything that he has voiced an opinion on, from climate change to covid and brexit. He's a talker, not a thinker.
This piece always bears re-reading, it's hilarious.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
But for his work on Brexit he's a good person to have in the Lords.
I just wonder if he was a Labour MP whether you'd say the same.
Who are we kidding, you wouldn't.
Of course I would not.
I would expect Labour people to advocate for those they agree with. Why the heck should I advocate for socialists? I'm not a socialist, I don't respect Labour, there are very few Labour people I would advocate for.
But my point I already said is that the Lords is an unelected chamber that exists to advise the elected chamber. It should be defanged further and make it clear the Commons is the unicameral soul elected authority.
If you want to advocate for Labour people do so yourself. Don't expect Tories to do so.
This post explains, so, so much.
Why? Something shock you that a Tory wants Tories in Parliament?
Let socialists advocate for socialists in Parliament. Don't expect us to do your job for you.
"As we have good stock levels, please shop as you normally would so that everyone is able to get what they need.
We continue to have good availability on the small number of fresh products, such as lettuce, cauliflower and citrus fruit, that we import from France at this time of year."
Sheep must be superspreaders. What other explanation is there?
What are the sharny white fluffy things going 'baah' on the hill out the back here in Scotland, then?!
The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
Not yet:
While we can't be sure that the new strain originated in the UK, the obvious spread out from the Isle of Sheppy or thereabouts must be fairly strong evidence that it did. Either that or it was brought into the UK by one of the very early cases.
If it had become established elsewhere and then spread to the UK, you'd expect to see a much homogeneous distribution of cases, wouldn't you?
That graph is weird no?
If its the teenage mutant Ninja turtle strain we think it is, it should have spread fast everywhere it seeds (a bit like a weed?)
But....it hasn't?
It seeded in Scotland and South Wales but no turbo growth?
You would indeed expect to spread fast everywhere it seeds. That's my point. The fact that it hasn't yet spread everywhere indicates that it originated in north-west Kent (rather than being seeded simultaneously in different places) and had been spreading out from there. It spreads fast, but not instantaneously!
So you think we should have government-by-opnion-polls?
That's your response when someone posts the result of an opinion poll?
Looking forward to "So you're a paedophile" when someone posts a news item about paedophilia and "So you're a Nazi" when someone mentions the war.
No, it's the response when an opinion poll says something he doesn't like.
My personal favourite is when he is allowed to provide meaning to his vote for BXP - which was voting for Farage and his party and he knows it - but when others provide meaning they're not allowed.
He's the most classic of hypocrites.
Liar.
Name one time I have ever, ever denied others the right to provide meaning for their votes? Once ever, or retract that statement please.
I'm a liberal and a democrat, I believe in free speech, freedom of assembly and free voting. Anyone can vote however they want, for whatever reason they want and whatever justification they want. I have never advocated denying that right to anyone. I have opposed No Platforming and denying others the right to speak all my life.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
"As we have good stock levels, please shop as you normally would so that everyone is able to get what they need.
We continue to have good availability on the small number of fresh products, such as lettuce, cauliflower and citrus fruit, that we import from France at this time of year."
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Sheep must be superspreaders. What other explanation is there?
What are the sharny white fluffy things going 'baah' on the hill out the back here in Scotland, then?!
The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
Not yet:
While we can't be sure that the new strain originated in the UK, the obvious spread out from the Isle of Sheppy or thereabouts must be fairly strong evidence that it did. Either that or it was brought into the UK by one of the very early cases.
If it had become established elsewhere and then spread to the UK, you'd expect to see a much homogeneous distribution of cases, wouldn't you?
I don't think we can be sure it originated here at all. Only yesterday scientists were claiming the N501Y mutation was detected in Brazil in April, in Australia between June and July, and in the US in July.
It seems the main reason we are detecting it here as we are one of the few countries with the ability to do so.
"As we have good stock levels, please shop as you normally would so that everyone is able to get what they need.
We continue to have good availability on the small number of fresh products, such as lettuce, cauliflower and citrus fruit, that we import from France at this time of year."
Surely they could have substituted something: another size turkey, another bird or even another cut of meat. Anything would be better than nothing at all. (I'd draw the line at a "cauliflower steak" though, even speaking as a vegetarian.)
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
I personally was not a fan of Obama, but you can hardly say that nothing of his survived long term, even if you limit items in that bag to just the ACA.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Minuscule to you maybe but for millions earning by right the minimum wage not so much.
And yet he walked all over you Eurofanatics. That must really grate.
Richard you know I have a lot of time for you but do you not think in the current crisis with COVID it's irresponsible to reward somebody who spread fake news which could have put a lot of people in danger?
I am sure you would be the first - and you would be right - to call it out if it was coming from the other side.
For example, I am sure we would both agree that it's wrong for somebody to elected to the HoL who was involved in the Labour anti-Semitism crisis, e.g. Karie Murphy who a lot (in the Labour Party anyway) would argue ran the Labour Party well and yet I would think her promotion to the HoL was totally inappropriate and I am glad she was not?
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Daniel Hannan has been wrong on almost everything that he has voiced an opinion on, from climate change to covid and brexit. He's a talker, not a thinker.
This piece always bears re-reading, it's hilarious.
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
I don't live in South Wales.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
"I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep."
Is that a temporary housing for the Eisteddfod winners or something?
If Tier 4 is not working in London it is time to accept the tiers have comprehensively failed and we need an England (preferably UK-wide with the other nations hopefully agreeing) wide lockdown until a vaccine is properly rolled out.
Can someone who understands government speak pls explain what "Seven–day rolling rate of new cases" means on the covid maps?
The number of cases per day taken as an average over the seven days?
Not quite.. the rate is the number of cases detected in a seven-day period per 100k of population in that town/county/region/nation.
The figure shifts forward by a day each day (so six days' data the same, one lost at the start, one added at the end). And although the govt has raw data up to the previous day, it calculates these rates upto about 6 days previously, as the more recent ones are subject to revision as more tests come back. I think PA and the BBC do their own calculations up to a day or two later.
So Sheppey East which Peston is tweeting about has had 246 positive tests in the week up to Dec 16, in a population of around 7k.. which equates to an (eyewatering) rate of 2842/100k or about ten times the UK average.
My personal opinion, watching the latest gyrations on Brexit negotiations, is that Boris is about to fold.
But. If he does not. If we end up with a No Deal Brexit. What will the EU's access to British fishing grounds look like then? What will we offer them regardless of a Brexit deal? Has anyone addressed this?
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
I don't live in South Wales.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
Compliance has been pathetic here in Wales, but my experience over the border is that was no better. I suspect England are a few days to a week behind us.
P.S. I disagree with your Blair analysis. Iraq a disaster, but many positives to take out of Blair's decade.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
If there were an overwhelming desire for an English parliament I am guessing that the Tories who have been in power for the last decade might have delivered it by now.
There is currently no demand for an English Parliament as English voters have got the UK government they voted for ever since devolution began in the late 1990s, with the party that won a majority of seats in England forming the UK government.
On current polls though that will not be the case in 2024, England would vote Tory again but would get a UK Labour led government thanks to SNP MPs.
That may well increase demands for an English Parliament within England
Bingo. Devolution is asymmetric because the UK is asymmetric: its largest constituent part is 10x larger than its second largest. England will almost certainly be governed by people it voted for, Scotland has for most of the last few decades faced a UK government it didn't vote for, ditto Wales. Symmetric devolution requires power to be devolved to English regions in the same was as for Scotland, since an English parliament will generally be just an expensive replication of Westminster. But English regions don't seem to want that kind of devolution (a mystery to me given how poorly Westminster has delivered for them, but I'm not English). Hence asymmetric devolution. The alternative is Scottish independence, which you would send in the tanks to prevent.
Personally I would prefer an English Parliament but would accept regional assemblies within England.
Either way we must finally resolve the West Lothian question
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Daniel Hannan has been wrong on almost everything that he has voiced an opinion on, from climate change to covid and brexit. He's a talker, not a thinker.
This piece always bears re-reading, it's hilarious.
Can someone who understands government speak pls explain what "Seven–day rolling rate of new cases" means on the covid maps?
The number of cases per day taken as an average over the seven days?
Yes. You need to take a 7-day average as testing numbers come in as there’s considerable intra-week variation. It’s like needing seasonal adjustment when looking at house-price indices.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Co-incidentally he’s been wrong about almost every Brexit prediction he’s ever made.
What you think that says about Brexit is up to you
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Minuscule to you maybe but for millions earning by right the minimum wage not so much.
I still have a lot of difficulty containing my anger about Iraq.
So, for reasons of cleanliness, let's just leave it with the pretty picture of you and Tony "standing shoulder to shoulder with a Republican USA president", as you put it.
Can someone who understands government speak pls explain what "Seven–day rolling rate of new cases" means on the covid maps?
The number of cases per day taken as an average over the seven days?
Not quite.. the rate is the number of cases detected in a seven-day period per 100k of population in that town/county/region/nation.
The figure shifts forward by a day each day (so six days' data the same, one lost at the start, one added at the end). And although the govt has raw data up to the previous day, it calculates these rates upto about 6 days previously, as the more recent ones are subject to revision as more tests come back. I think PA and the BBC do their own calculations up to a day or two later.
So Sheppey East which Peston is tweeting about has had 246 positive tests in the week up to Dec 16, in a population of around 7k.. which equates to an (eyewatering) rate of 2842/100k or about ten times the UK average.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
Obama "floated through US politics like a turd on a river".
An odd picture for the process of getting health care through a hung congress and inheriting an economy in the toilet and handing it over strong and balanced to bring to mind.
Dread to think what your image of Donald J Trump is!
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
If there were an overwhelming desire for an English parliament I am guessing that the Tories who have been in power for the last decade might have delivered it by now.
There is currently no demand for an English Parliament as English voters have got the UK government they voted for ever since devolution began in the late 1990s, with the party that won a majority of seats in England forming the UK government.
On current polls though that will not be the case in 2024, England would vote Tory again but would get a UK Labour led government thanks to SNP MPs.
That may well increase demands for an English Parliament within England
Bingo. Devolution is asymmetric because the UK is asymmetric: its largest constituent part is 10x larger than its second largest. England will almost certainly be governed by people it voted for, Scotland has for most of the last few decades faced a UK government it didn't vote for, ditto Wales. Symmetric devolution requires power to be devolved to English regions in the same was as for Scotland, since an English parliament will generally be just an expensive replication of Westminster. But English regions don't seem to want that kind of devolution (a mystery to me given how poorly Westminster has delivered for them, but I'm not English). Hence asymmetric devolution. The alternative is Scottish independence, which you would send in the tanks to prevent.
Personally I would prefer an English Parliament but would accept regional assemblies within England.
Either way we must finally resolve the West Lothian question
I agree with you (edit) although I would prefer regional English devolution as I think England is too large and diverse a country to be administered well from the centre. Something like the 9 administrative regions or a London/South/Midlands/North kind of breakdown maybe with something special for Cornwall.
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
I don't live in South Wales.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
Compliance has been pathetic here in Wales, but my experience over the border is that was no better. I suspect England are a few days to a week behind us.
P.S. I disagree with your Blair analysis. Iraq a disaster, but many positives to take out of Blair's decade.
I was young then. Nothing gets to you more than betrayal by your first true love.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
Obama "floated through US politics like a turd on a river".
An odd picture for the process of getting health care through a hung congress and inheriting an economy in the toilet and handing it over strong and balanced to bring to mind.
Dread to think what your image of Donald J Trump is!
My personal opinion, watching the latest gyrations on Brexit negotiations, is that Boris is about to fold.
But. If he does not. If we end up with a No Deal Brexit. What will the EU's access to British fishing grounds look like then? What will we offer them regardless of a Brexit deal? Has anyone addressed this?
Well, we could go for "f.u: it’s back to the 1960s fishing grounds for everyone!" approach, but I have a nasty suspicion that might result in a blockade of French ports by the French fishing fleet.
"As we have good stock levels, please shop as you normally would so that everyone is able to get what they need.
We continue to have good availability on the small number of fresh products, such as lettuce, cauliflower and citrus fruit, that we import from France at this time of year."
Surely they could have substituted something: another size turkey, another bird or even another cut of meat. Anything would be better than nothing at all. (I'd draw the line at a "cauliflower steak" though, even speaking as a vegetarian.)
We're currently self isolating until the end of Christmas Day as someone in our household tested positive last week and we ordered 2 duck breasts for dinner this week using Amazon's Morrisons same day delivery. They said it was out of stock and offered a 900g duck as a substitution for £6 which we accepted, but what actually came to the house was a 4kg goose worth £36 for which we paid £6. Substitutions can be great, but they can also be terrible.
When the History of Brexit comes to be written, the odious, toad-like qualities of Guy Verhoefwpffww will be a colourful footnote. He manages to embody everything dislikeable about the EU into one human persona. Impressive.
If New Formula Raging Bull COVID-19 is as bad as feared, it will surely be everywhere in a few weeks.
Brace.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
Not really do you know how expediential growth actually works - it's at the point the numbers of contagious people reaches the thousands and tens of thousands that it becomes a problem.
And given the week or so incubation period it would take 3 or so months before it reached the level it's an issue and 3 months from September is about now.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
I personally was not a fan of Obama, but you can hardly say that nothing of his survived long term, even if you limit items in that bag to just the ACA.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
I personally was not a fan of Obama, but you can hardly say that nothing of his survived long term, even if you limit items in that bag to just the ACA.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
I personally was not a fan of Obama, but you can hardly say that nothing of his survived long term, even if you limit items in that bag to just the ACA.
He handed over a healthy economy to his successor, didn't he?
And yet he walked all over you Eurofanatics. That must really grate.
Richard you know I have a lot of time for you but do you not think in the current crisis with COVID it's irresponsible to reward somebody who spread fake news which could have put a lot of people in danger?
I am sure you would be the first - and you would be right - to call it out if it was coming from the other side.
For example, I am sure we would both agree that it's wrong for somebody to elected to the HoL who was involved in the Labour anti-Semitism crisis, e.g. Karie Murphy who a lot (in the Labour Party anyway) would argue ran the Labour Party well and yet I would think her promotion to the HoL was totally inappropriate and I am glad she was not?
My argument has nothing to do with whether or not he should be given a seat in the HoL. It is with the claim that, because you (the collective you rather than you personally) disagree with someone they are automatically thick. Particularly coming from someone like Scott who is so fundamentally bereft of original thought or intelligence.
I have no interest in who gets sent to the Lords as I think the institution as it stands is completely unfit for purpose.
It is more than likely internal EU borders will be closed to each other shortly
As they were at the start of the pandemic. Another useless observation from Guy Verhofstadt above. He seems to think he's the only one who can explain Brexit to the British.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
When the History of Brexit comes to be written, the odious, toad-like qualities of Guy Verhoefwpffww will be a colourful footnote. He manages to embody everything dislikeable about the EU into one human persona. Impressive.
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
I don't live in South Wales.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
Compliance has been pathetic here in Wales, but my experience over the border is that was no better. I suspect England are a few days to a week behind us.
P.S. I disagree with your Blair analysis. Iraq a disaster, but many positives to take out of Blair's decade.
I was young then. Nothing gets to you more than betrayal by your first true love.
And yet he walked all over you Eurofanatics. That must really grate.
Richard you know I have a lot of time for you but do you not think in the current crisis with COVID it's irresponsible to reward somebody who spread fake news which could have put a lot of people in danger?
I am sure you would be the first - and you would be right - to call it out if it was coming from the other side.
For example, I am sure we would both agree that it's wrong for somebody to elected to the HoL who was involved in the Labour anti-Semitism crisis, e.g. Karie Murphy who a lot (in the Labour Party anyway) would argue ran the Labour Party well and yet I would think her promotion to the HoL was totally inappropriate and I am glad she was not?
My argument has nothing to do with whether or not he should be given a seat in the HoL. It is with the claim that, because you (the collective you rather than you personally) disagree with someone they are automatically thick. Particularly coming from someone like Scott who is so fundamentally bereft of original thought or intelligence.
I have no interest in who gets sent to the Lords as I think the institution as it stands is completely unfit for purpose.
Ah, I see. I don't agree with the idea anyone who disagrees with you is thick (who am I to judge! ) but in this particular case I do think Hannan has said some rather stupid things. Is he thick, hard to say. Careless perhaps.
I think we might rather agree on the HoL, I would like it abolished.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Minuscule to you maybe but for millions earning by right the minimum wage not so much.
I still have a lot of difficulty containing my anger about Iraq.
So, for reasons of cleanliness, let's just leave it with the pretty picture of you and Tony "standing shoulder to shoulder with a Republican USA president", as you put it.
In fact, you even said you were glad. Urgghh.
I was after 9/11. Also agreed with ending the Iraq regime under Saddam Hussein. He who was gassing his own people , flouting UN sanctions. Blair had a choice after the new York attack to back the USA in Afghanistan or stand aside. The failure in Iraq was after the regime fell.
When the History of Brexit comes to be written, the odious, toad-like qualities of Guy Verhoefwpffww will be a colourful footnote. He manages to embody everything dislikeable about the EU into one human persona. Impressive.
He certainly excels at winding up Brexiteers.
He also excels at making neutral or uncertain people become Leavers. I’ve witnessed it. So it’s a bit self-defeating, from his perspective
Can someone who understands government speak pls explain what "Seven–day rolling rate of new cases" means on the covid maps?
The number of cases per day taken as an average over the seven days?
Add up the cases over the last 7 days. Divide by population to get a fraction. Express per 100,000.
It’s “rolling”, because the furthest day back is dropped out and the new day added on. Divide by seven to get the average daily infections per 100,000 over the past seven days.
If New Formula Raging Bull COVID-19 is as bad as feared, it will surely be everywhere in a few weeks.
Brace.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
Not really do you know how expediential growth actually works - it's at the point the numbers of contagious people reaches the thousands and tens of thousands that it becomes a problem.
And given the week or so incubation period it would take 3 or so months before it reached the level it's an issue and 3 months from September is about now.
For some of that time, of course, we had a one month lockdown. I guess that delayed the strain? put the brakes on? or something?
The only good thing about probably having to lock down the entire country until a vaccine is rolled out is that it will truly, utterly, completely focus minds on the vaccine programme. If that is the only real exit strategy from this new variant then it can't drag on for 6, 9, 12 months etc., or at least not in a way that leaves the country utterly stuck in lockdown.
Right now, there ought to be someone from the government on the TV every day, pretty much, talking about progress on the vaccination front, because it's the only game in town.
He hitched himself to Nigel Fucking Farage until the day after the vote, when he claimed we was never part of that same campaign.
Which is even worse. You got beat by Nige Farage
No shame in defeat at the hands of a very skillful and committed albeit rather unsavoury player of the game. Like losing to Don Revie's "Dirty Leeds" in the early 70s.
If we hadn't seen these scenes many times when we were members then perhaps he might have had a point.
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
French aren’t playing games. They are winning them.
Macron has ridden over the hill like cavalry to rescue us from no deal, by forcing Boris to cave on fishing, as Boris has been surrendering the last 24 hours taking fright at those lorry queues
If we hadn't seen these scenes many times when we were members then perhaps he might have had a point.
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
The fact that Manston airport, 18 miles away from Dover, has been turned into a huge lorry park for up to 4,000 lorries is everything to do with Brexit and nothing to do with Covid.
When the History of Brexit comes to be written, the odious, toad-like qualities of Guy Verhoefwpffww will be a colourful footnote. He manages to embody everything dislikeable about the EU into one human persona. Impressive.
He certainly excels at winding up Brexiteers.
He also excels at making neutral or uncertain people become Leavers. I’ve witnessed it. So it’s a bit self-defeating, from his perspective
If there is ever any attempt to reverse Brexit you can be sure that the thoughts of Guy will feature heavily in the campaign against it.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
He hitched himself to Nigel Fucking Farage until the day after the vote, when he claimed we was never part of that same campaign.
Which is even worse. You got beat by Nige Farage
No shame in defeat at the hands of a very skillful and committed albeit rather unsavoury player of the game. Like losing to Don Revie's "Dirty Leeds" in the early 70s.
Yes. Farage is arguably the most skilful, certainly most influential, British politician of the last 20 years. But most ardent Remainers are too crazed to admit this.
He destroyed David Cameron’s career, for a start, which is quite poignant when you recollect Dave’s remarks about UKIP: ‘closet racists, loonies’ etc
Comments
My personal favourite is when he is allowed to provide meaning to his vote for BXP - which was voting for Farage and his party and he knows it - but when others provide meaning they're not allowed.
He's the most classic of hypocrites.
If its the teenage mutant Ninja turtle strain we think it is, it should have spread fast everywhere it seeds (a bit like a weed?)
But....it hasn't?
It seeded in Scotland and South Wales but no turbo growth?
Great twitter header pic as well.
Edit: Total cases is similar to the red chart, rolling rate is similar to the green chart?
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
Let socialists advocate for socialists in Parliament. Don't expect us to do your job for you.
Do I expect YOU to advocate for Tories?
"As we have good stock levels, please shop as you normally would so that everyone is able to get what they need.
We continue to have good availability on the small number of fresh products, such as lettuce, cauliflower and citrus fruit, that we import from France at this time of year."
Name one time I have ever, ever denied others the right to provide meaning for their votes? Once ever, or retract that statement please.
I'm a liberal and a democrat, I believe in free speech, freedom of assembly and free voting. Anyone can vote however they want, for whatever reason they want and whatever justification they want. I have never advocated denying that right to anyone. I have opposed No Platforming and denying others the right to speak all my life.
It seems the main reason we are detecting it here as we are one of the few countries with the ability to do so.
He hitched himself to Nigel Fucking Farage until the day after the vote, when he claimed we was never part of that same campaign.
I am sure you would be the first - and you would be right - to call it out if it was coming from the other side.
For example, I am sure we would both agree that it's wrong for somebody to elected to the HoL who was involved in the Labour anti-Semitism crisis, e.g. Karie Murphy who a lot (in the Labour Party anyway) would argue ran the Labour Party well and yet I would think her promotion to the HoL was totally inappropriate and I am glad she was not?
Tear in his eye, I picture, as he typed that closing line.
But let's not be too sarky. Perhaps we'll start singing next year.
All together now ...
Is that a temporary housing for the Eisteddfod winners or something?
The figure shifts forward by a day each day (so six days' data the same, one lost at the start, one added at the end). And although the govt has raw data up to the previous day, it calculates these rates upto about 6 days previously, as the more recent ones are subject to revision as more tests come back. I think PA and the BBC do their own calculations up to a day or two later.
So Sheppey East which Peston is tweeting about has had 246 positive tests in the week up to Dec 16, in a population of around 7k.. which equates to an (eyewatering) rate of 2842/100k or about ten times the UK average.
But. If he does not. If we end up with a No Deal Brexit. What will the EU's access to British fishing grounds look like then? What will we offer them regardless of a Brexit deal? Has anyone addressed this?
P.S. I disagree with your Blair analysis. Iraq a disaster, but many positives to take out of Blair's decade.
Reported today: 36,804 cases, 691 deaths, 1,875 admissions, 423,675 tests.
Either way we must finally resolve the West Lothian question
What you think that says about Brexit is up to you
Brace.
So, for reasons of cleanliness, let's just leave it with the pretty picture of you and Tony "standing shoulder to shoulder with a Republican USA president", as you put it.
In fact, you even said you were glad. Urgghh.
The potential consequences are far reaching.
https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/solarwinds-hack-malware-active-breach.html
An odd picture for the process of getting health care through a hung congress and inheriting an economy in the toilet and handing it over strong and balanced to bring to mind.
Dread to think what your image of Donald J Trump is!
Dan has always been an idealist rather than a pragmatist - which isn't always bad but is definitely not a good look when it comes to Covid.
I expect betrayal by politicians now.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
Senior Republican says party’s final election challenge will ‘go down like a shot dog’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/trump-election-result-overturning-effort-republicans
And given the week or so incubation period it would take 3 or so months before it reached the level it's an issue and 3 months from September is about now.
I have no interest in who gets sent to the Lords as I think the institution as it stands is completely unfit for purpose.
What makes this strain so special?
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
I think we might rather agree on the HoL, I would like it abolished.
My apologies for any misunderstanding.
Question is: will this same pattern be seen abroad? Or has it already happened overseas and just wasn’t detected?
It certainly appears as if Ireland has caught it. Their case loads are now rising by 10% a day
Also agreed with ending the Iraq regime under Saddam Hussein.
He who was gassing his own people , flouting UN sanctions.
Blair had a choice after the new York attack to back the USA in Afghanistan or stand aside.
The failure in Iraq was after the regime fell.
Divide by population to get a fraction.
Express per 100,000.
It’s “rolling”, because the furthest day back is dropped out and the new day added on.
Divide by seven to get the average daily infections per 100,000 over the past seven days.
The comparison with Blair is not apposite because Blair had virtually untrammelled power until at least the Iraq War.
Right now, there ought to be someone from the government on the TV every day, pretty much, talking about progress on the vaccination front, because it's the only game in town.
I once again suggest bitcoin.
Macron has ridden over the hill like cavalry to rescue us from no deal, by forcing Boris to cave on fishing, as Boris has been surrendering the last 24 hours taking fright at those lorry queues
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains.
- The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains.
- The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
He destroyed David Cameron’s career, for a start, which is quite poignant when you recollect Dave’s remarks about UKIP: ‘closet racists, loonies’ etc