Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
By the time of the next election the magic money tree will be completely foliage-free.
I am not asking for cast iron policy three years out from an election. A basic to-consider list rather than a fully costed Marshall Plan for the post economic meltdown would be a start.
I wouldn't particularly focus on Starmer's cabinet, which, as is, has vastly more talent in it than Johnson's. I get the impression the star of the "exception that proves the incompetence rule", ie Sunak, is on the wane. Incidentally Sunak is ahead of Starmer in the next PM stakes. A lay, I think.
A propopos. A remarkable 4% of people in Northern Ireland think Brandon "No Sea Border" Lewis is doing a somewhat good job in the Province. A contrast with his capable predecessor Julian Smith, who was sacked from Johnson's cabinet on grounds of competence.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
Or even Ed Miliband.
Whatever you do, don't let him anywhere near Greggs for a photo-op!
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
If you want the Tories to win, by all means why not! She is all hot air and has HIPS added to her lack of credit.
I was involved in training for Energy Surveys for HIPS in the late 2000s. HIPS was a great idea that the Daily Mail would have allowed to fly if it it had come from the pen of a Tory Minister.
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
If you want the Tories to win, by all means why not! She is all hot air and has HIPS added to her lack of credit.
I was involved in training for Energy Surveys for HIPS in the late 2000s. HIPS was a great idea that the Daily Mail would have allowed to fly if it it had come from the pen of a Tory Minister.
Wasn’t the problem with HIPS that the survey was worthless to the buyer, because any bank lending money against the property wanted to see their own full survey done anyway?
Dems now quoting English history - that former government officials could brought to trial, citing case of Warren Hastings, former governor general of Benghal - as precedent : the case cited "as a model for us" by one of the authors of the US constitution
Then they’re fecking idiots. Hastings was prosecuted on trumped up (sorry) charges by his political enemies with the sole aim of preventing him from gaining domestic political office. His trial lasted eight years, cost £70,000 in legal fees and by the end one-third of peers present for the opening had died.
And then, being acquitted, he had to be given £4000 a year for life to compensate for the money he had spent in the trial. That cost the Treasury a cool £112,000 over the next 28 years.
Do they honestly want that drawn as a parallel with what’s happening now?
Talking of famous beauties, I have just discovered that J-Lo, the shapely and callipygous Jennifer Lopez, a lady 'oo I 'ave met, is now..... 51 years old
I wouldn't particularly focus on Starmer's cabinet, which, as is, has vastly more talent in it than Johnson's. I get the impression the star of the "exception that proves the incompetence rule", ie Sunak, is on the wane. Incidentally Sunak is ahead of Starmer in the next PM stakes. A lay, I think.
A propopos. A remarkable 4% of people in Northern Ireland think Brandon "No Sea Border" Lewis is doing a somewhat good job in the Province. A contrast with his capable predecessor Julian Smith, who was sacked from Johnson's cabinet on grounds of competence.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Talking of famous beauties, I have just discovered that J-Lo, the shapely and callipygous Jennifer Lopez, a lady 'oo I 'ave met, is now..... 51 years old
I feel ancient
Not very polite to describe your good lady as ancient at a mere 51.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
By the time of the next election the magic money tree will be completely foliage-free.
I am not asking for cast iron policy three years out from an election. A basic to-consider list rather than a fully costed Marshall Plan for the post economic meltdown would be a start.
Yes I agree. I am not sure about ending Universal credit . Would be a massive change in my opinion. I would try to make changes to improvem it.
Nigeria’s Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) says it has closed an unnamed test centre in the capital Abuja that was issuing fake Covid-19 certificates to travellers.
Director general of the NCDC, Chikwe Ihekweazu, said they had found evidence that the lab was collecting samples and money from unsuspecting travellers, but failing to test them.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Starmer's performance as Leader of the Opposition in times of Covid.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Do you know what, if Johnson or one of his wingmen win in 2014 I am old enough and comfortable enough not to care too much.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
If it was an accidental escape, the Chinese are not going to admit it, are they? They will have covered it up, EXACTLY the same way they tried to cover up the initial outbreak, to the extent they kidnapped and "disappeared" journalists, and shuttered native research into its origin.
WHO are entirely reliant on the Chinese being honest, which, we know, they are not. This is a regime which is right now committing genocide.
It came from the lab. Which was uniquely researching novel bat coronaviruses about 1 mile from the wet market where a novel bat coronavirus miraculously jumped into humans. Believing anything else is an offense against Ockham's Razor.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Do you know what, if Johnson or one of his wingmen win in 2014 I am old enough and comfortable enough not to care too much.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
The French lunch hour - famous as a bastion of the French way of life - is under threat.
The government says it’s planning to pass a new decree allowing workers to eat at their desks, a practice officially banned in the country’s labour law.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Starmer's performance as Leader of the Opposition in times of Covid.
Woeful.
Indeed 110,000 deaths and counting on his watch as LOTO.
Nigeria’s Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) says it has closed an unnamed test centre in the capital Abuja that was issuing fake Covid-19 certificates to travellers.
Director general of the NCDC, Chikwe Ihekweazu, said they had found evidence that the lab was collecting samples and money from unsuspecting travellers, but failing to test them.
Welcome to Africa!
It’s actually surprising there haven’t been more of these stories around, there will be similar issues with vaccine certificates.
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
Am prepared to wait, but the WHO has a big position regarding Covid to defend. I can't see them ever going "Oooops...we fucked up on a monumental scale."
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
Or even Ed Miliband.
I'm not convinced that Labour's answer is retreads from the dying days of Brown and Blair's era.
They may be considered the 'big beasts' because they're experienced and we know their name but the real big beasts are those that grow for the job.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't even Labour MPs when Labour lost office in 1979. David Cameron and George Osborne weren't even Tory MPs when the Tories lost office in 1997. Rishi Sunak wasn't even a Tory MP when the Coalition left office in 2015 (!)
Labour don't need to bring back retreads from the past. They need to find the fresh, big, quality talent for the future. Who that is I'm not sure, but its not Dodds.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
I wouldn't particularly focus on Starmer's cabinet, which, as is, has vastly more talent in it than Johnson's. I get the impression the star of the "exception that proves the incompetence rule", ie Sunak, is on the wane. Incidentally Sunak is ahead of Starmer in the next PM stakes. A lay, I think.
A propopos. A remarkable 4% of people in Northern Ireland think Brandon "No Sea Border" Lewis is doing a somewhat good job in the Province. A contrast with his capable predecessor Julian Smith, who was sacked from Johnson's cabinet on grounds of competence.
It's almost as if Boris is doing everything possible to get Northern Ireland to join the Republic.
He probably isn't, but it would make his life easier if it happened, of course.
Is there polling on how the population of the Republic would feel about this these days? NI is a bit of a liability, with a good proportion of the population predisposed to getting upset at such a move, and their government did collapse after setting up a system that paid people money to set fire to things. Outside of making the map tidier, I'm not sure what they'd gain.
Nigeria’s Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) says it has closed an unnamed test centre in the capital Abuja that was issuing fake Covid-19 certificates to travellers.
Director general of the NCDC, Chikwe Ihekweazu, said they had found evidence that the lab was collecting samples and money from unsuspecting travellers, but failing to test them.
Welcome to Africa!
It’s actually surprising there haven’t been more of these stories around, there will be similar issues with vaccine certificates.
Careful you will be accused of racist out dated colonial attitudes to Africa....i bet you wear a tie.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Starmer's performance as Leader of the Opposition in times of Covid.
Woeful.
Indeed 110,000 deaths and counting on his watch as LOTO.
*Deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
If you want the Tories to win, by all means why not! She is all hot air and has HIPS added to her lack of credit.
I was involved in training for Energy Surveys for HIPS in the late 2000s. HIPS was a great idea that the Daily Mail would have allowed to fly if it it had come from the pen of a Tory Minister.
Wasn’t the problem with HIPS that the survey was worthless to the buyer, because any bank lending money against the property wanted to see their own full survey done anyway?
It wasn't well executed, but in principle it should have worked better than what went before. Damn bankers!
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
Or even Ed Miliband.
I'm not convinced that Labour's answer is retreads from the dying days of Brown and Blair's era.
They may be considered the 'big beasts' because they're experienced and we know their name but the real big beasts are those that grow for the job.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't even Labour MPs when Labour lost office in 1979. David Cameron and George Osborne weren't even Tory MPs when the Tories lost office in 1997. Rishi Sunak wasn't even a Tory MP when the Coalition left office in 2015 (!)
Labour don't need to bring back retreads from the past. They need to find the fresh, big, quality talent for the future. Who that is I'm not sure, but its not Dodds.
Be a good subject of a thread - who ARE the upcoming Labour big beasts? (I have no knowledge on this subject!)
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Starmer's performance as Leader of the Opposition in times of Covid.
Woeful.
Indeed 110,000 deaths and counting on his watch as LOTO.
*Deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Starmer's performance as Leader of the Opposition in times of Covid.
Woeful.
Indeed 110,000 deaths and counting on his watch as LOTO.
*Deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test.
A fair correction.
Meanwhile Boris' party surges by the day in the polls, while Starmer's sinks...
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Do you know what, if Johnson or one of his wingmen win in 2014 I am old enough and comfortable enough not to care too much.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
Yes, I agree entirely. No one has really begun to grasp how terrible this might be, economically, and it might still get much worse: if the SA Bug takes over across the EU and the UK, giving us all a tough third wave. And new variants?
There is so much risk on the downside.
Indeed my fears are greater than any Starmer win. He'll be fine. Boring but fine, he might even be good for the Union.
My fear is that the economic pain will be so shocking voters will reach for extreme solutions.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Depressingly, I fear you are right. Johnson is the Berlusconi of British politics. None of his dirt ever stuck to Berlusconi, although it deserved to. Every one of Berlusconi's many premierships saw Italy fall further into the mire. You can even identify his times in office on the GDP trend chart. I fear Johnson could be the same.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
The French lunch hour - famous as a bastion of the French way of life - is under threat.
The government says it’s planning to pass a new decree allowing workers to eat at their desks, a practice officially banned in the country’s labour law.
They'll still be able to take 3 hours to eat their sandwich.
(I have worked with Frenchmen who did indeed think it their God-given right to take 3 hours over lunch.....)
The French lunch hour - famous as a bastion of the French way of life - is under threat.
The government says it’s planning to pass a new decree allowing workers to eat at their desks, a practice officially banned in the country’s labour law.
They'll still be able to take 3 hours to eat their sandwich.
(I have worked with Frenchmen who did indeed think it their God-given right to take 3 hours over lunch.....)
I thought 3 hours asleep was Spain and parish councillors until the Chairlady woke them up...
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Could you find a policy mix that appeals both the red wall seats and cities like Sadiq Khan's London??
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Do you know what, if Johnson or one of his wingmen win in 2014 I am old enough and comfortable enough not to care too much.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
Yes, I agree entirely. No one has really begun to grasp how terrible this might be, economically, and it might still get much worse: if the SA Bug takes over across the EU and the UK, giving us all a tough third wave. And new variants?
There is so much risk on the downside.
Indeed my fears are greater than any Starmer win. He'll be fine. Boring but fine, he might even be good for the Union.
My fear is that the economic pain will be so shocking voters will reach for extreme solutions.
Even the Remainiacs - I was one, once - are complaining that we didn't Close the Borders. This cry is global. It's normal now. We'll have a big old war.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
So where would you go?
Brighton has been nutjob central for quite some time.
The Great Bacon Butty Ban?
This one does not even make sense in cloud cuckoo land imo. Boobs are boobs are boobs.
I don't even see how "chest-feeding" is trans-friendly, even if you are following a transgenderist ideology.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
SLab are dead in the water. You need not worry about them.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Depressingly, I fear you are right. Johnson is the Berlusconi of British politics. None of his dirt ever stuck to Berlusconi, although it deserved to. Every one of Berlusconi's many premierships saw Italy fall further into the mire. You can even identify his times in office on the GDP trend chart. I fear Johnson could be the same.
Berlusconi did lose elections too though, losing power in 1996, 2006 and 2013 but he also came back twice winning in 2001 and 2008.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
It’s just transference. The people who came up with this policy don’t like being reminded they’re making enormous boobs all the time.
Starmer is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn but he has his own problems. He's dull. He has no obvious sense of humour or the ridiculous, he's a bit to worthy and earnest about things that the vast majority really don't care about and he has no obvious vision (or at least he is doing a seriously good job of hiding it if he does). He also hung around with Corbyn for a bit long and tolerated some pretty disgusting behaviour without feeling the need to resign.
So not such an easy or compelling target but not someone whom the Tories should fear either. He's certainly no Blair and he has no heavyweight like Brown backing him up either. I am sure I have told the story before about a young Osborne and Finklestein going to the Labour party conference about 1994 and getting royally drunk after hearing Blair speak. They were both convinced that they could never beat him and, guess what, they never did. The equivalent attendee at this year's Labour conference is more likely to be worried about staying awake and retaining the will to live.
I think the odds are fair enough tbh.
Mike is right about the odds.
Starmer is OK, but he does need to cull the dead wood from the Shadow Cabinet, and replace it with some pre-Corbyn big hitters (well of those few remaining that Corbyn didn't eject from the party).
I disagree he needs to use the best new talent like the shadow home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds. He does not need to make it Milliband mark 2 which did not win. The public in the main do not care and can hardly name a cabinet member or shadow cabinet member in normal times . As in all GE the main focus is the leader ,he is doing fine especially in a pandemic when the government is able to speak to the public everyday which drowns out any other issues. So it would be a waste of time to announce them. The magic money tree has finally been broken apart as the conservatives have broken this. Which will mean they can not easily make this attack work again. )
For starters Dodds is a wallflower. Why not give Yvette an outing?
Or even Ed Miliband.
I'm not convinced that Labour's answer is retreads from the dying days of Brown and Blair's era.
They may be considered the 'big beasts' because they're experienced and we know their name but the real big beasts are those that grow for the job.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't even Labour MPs when Labour lost office in 1979. David Cameron and George Osborne weren't even Tory MPs when the Tories lost office in 1997. Rishi Sunak wasn't even a Tory MP when the Coalition left office in 2015 (!)
Labour don't need to bring back retreads from the past. They need to find the fresh, big, quality talent for the future. Who that is I'm not sure, but its not Dodds.
Be a good subject of a thread - who ARE the upcoming Labour big beasts? (I have no knowledge on this subject!)
Indeed. Its hard to pick the big beasts of the future. Its not that long ago that Sunak was tipped at 200/1 for next PM . . . it wouldn't surprise me if the next Labour PM (not necessarily the next PM) is one currently unlisted let alone 250/1.
I'm not one to make a prediction for Labour. If someone here could then it would make a very interesting thread.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
“When you deal with a world order where certain countries are big enough to create their own truths, you’re never going to get to a situation where there’s universally accepted truths,” said Tim Trevan, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and co-founder of Chrome Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting. “China and America are already lining up to come to different conclusions.”
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Who came up with this nonsense? Who does it help? Who has complained?
No trans-women will be breastfeeding anyway so it doesn't help them and I can't imagine many biological women will be giving birth, breastfeeding and deciding they're actually a trans-man all at the same time.
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
The Chinese said it didn’t happen, so it didn’t happen.
The other side of that coin is because it’s the Chinese government saying that, you assume that it did.
Whereas the reality is that it’s a facility with reasonably competent scientists, and we just don’t know.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
On the other hand, I have young friends who tell me that their generation is beginning to rebel against the extremes of Woke Madness, especially the insanity surrounding trans issues (as here)
Let us hope that is true. All pendulums swing and all fashions end, usually at the extreme point (like huge flared trousers suddenly becoming ludicrous and everyone went to drainpipes). CHESTFEEDING. Jesus.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
A Labour majority without Scotland is a very tall order.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Who came up with this nonsense? Who does it help? Who has complained?
No trans-women will be breastfeeding anyway so it doesn't help them and I can't imagine many biological women will be giving birth, breastfeeding and deciding they're actually a trans-man all at the same time.
Its just nonsense.
The classic we are offended on behalf of those who could be offended.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Not just that, what must 99% of gender dysphoric/ambivalent people think? I am pretty certain they just want to get on with their lives and are victims of the tendency of the left to select quite arbitrarily populations (like the Palestinians) to be wankers about.
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
“When you deal with a world order where certain countries are big enough to create their own truths, you’re never going to get to a situation where there’s universally accepted truths,” said Tim Trevan, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and co-founder of Chrome Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting. “China and America are already lining up to come to different conclusions.”
Let’s just assume, for the moment, Starmer makes a gain of 100 seats at the next election. Which seems possible, given the current situation, although by historic standards it is a pretty tough ask, having happened just twice since VJ Day. Let’s also assume 20 come from the SNP (ignore that loud bang from Ayrshire, Mrs G can repair the house later) and 80 from the Tories. Let’s also assume with that exception other parties are pretty well as you were.
That would leave Starmer on around 300, the Tories on around 285.
So @HYUFD is, to be serious, correct that the only viable government under those circumstances would be lab/SNP.
The joker would be if the Liberal Democrats can pick up another ten seats or so off the Tories, in which case they come back into play as coalition partners.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Who came up with this nonsense? Who does it help? Who has complained?
No trans-women will be breastfeeding anyway so it doesn't help them and I can't imagine many biological women will be giving birth, breastfeeding and deciding they're actually a trans-man all at the same time.
Its just nonsense.
The Grievance-Journalism nexus exists to create ever more outlandish clickbait to sell advertising space and create jobs that cannot be easily outsourced or replaced by AI.
The side effects for the participants and the wider public, however, are not conducive to anything other than right of centre governments...
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
“When you deal with a world order where certain countries are big enough to create their own truths, you’re never going to get to a situation where there’s universally accepted truths,” said Tim Trevan, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and co-founder of Chrome Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting. “China and America are already lining up to come to different conclusions.”
Wonder who that could be ...
One of those questions like "what is the square root of 1 million?" to which we will never know the answer.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Not just that, what must 99% of gender dysphoric/ambivalent people think? I am pretty certain they just want to get on with their lives and are victims of the tendency of the left to select quite arbitrarily populations (like the Palestinians) to be wankers about.
Quite. And it is so egregious, absurd and insultingly pointless that it probably creates resentment against trans people, so it has the opposite effect to that intended. Brilliant.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
I can't see any benefit to Labour, aside from "just" getting the keys to a tentative stay in No 10 of doing any deal with the SNP. In any event its counter-intuitive - SNP gain independence he loses their MP's support anyway (forcing things through Parliament using Scottish MP's who'll be off is just suicide), and if he wins any Indy ref the SNP will enter such a sulk they'll probably withdraw support to force another GE anyway. Where's the win?
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
If it was an accidental escape, the Chinese are not going to admit it, are they? They will have covered it up, EXACTLY the same way they tried to cover up the initial outbreak, to the extent they kidnapped and "disappeared" journalists, and shuttered native research into its origin.
WHO are entirely reliant on the Chinese being honest, which, we know, they are not. This is a regime which is right now committing genocide.
It came from the lab. Which was uniquely researching novel bat coronaviruses about 1 mile from the wet market where a novel bat coronavirus miraculously jumped into humans. Believing anything else is an offense against Ockham's Razor.
They are not entirely reliant on the Chinese being honest - or open. If there is a lack of openness, or a feeling amongst the inspection team that they were being told porkies, or mis-direction, that will find its way into the report.
Let me be clear - a universally accepted truth will never come out of this - or any similar - international inspection, because the mere fact that we have got to this pass means that there are vested interests in alternative truths.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Gavin Williamson couldn’t even outwit Theresa May. What makes you think he’d beat Starmer?
Starmer's performance as Leader of the Opposition in times of Covid.
Woeful.
Indeed 110,000 deaths and counting on his watch as LOTO.
*Deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test.
A fair correction.
Meanwhile Boris' party surges by the day in the polls, while Starmer's sinks...
Let's see how the next three years shakes down.
I have consistently said throughout last year, Tory lead, post vaccine. I don't believe that will continue, and fortunes will be reversed.
"It has still about the same transmissibility, but it seems that this mutation might enable it to escape immunity to some extent, which means that it's possible it could evade the vaccine."
Yay.....No way we are going back to normal in 2021.
I've got tickets to see Blondie with Garbage as the support act in November 2021.
I soooooooo want to go to that gig.
I still have tickets for 5-6 gigs I was supposed to be going to in 2020, which have been rescheduled once or twice already.
Same. Really am looking forward to seeing New Order.
LOL I would not hold your breath....
There will be more mutations and more vaccines, and more mutations and more vaccines, and ....
Probably in 2022, give or take a year, the medical profession themselves will accept the futility of continuing the battle and they will agree that the restrictions have to be scaled back. COVID-19 is bad, but it is barely a real pandemic due to its low mortality. This latest news about the Bristol mutation is totally unsurprising.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Do you know what, if Johnson or one of his wingmen win in 2014 I am old enough and comfortable enough not to care too much.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
Yes, I agree entirely. No one has really begun to grasp how terrible this might be, economically, and it might still get much worse: if the SA Bug takes over across the EU and the UK, giving us all a tough third wave. And new variants?
There is so much risk on the downside.
Indeed my fears are greater than any Starmer win. He'll be fine. Boring but fine, he might even be good for the Union.
My fear is that the economic pain will be so shocking voters will reach for extreme solutions.
Are you suggesting a Stephen Yaxley-Lennon shaped vacuum, if Labour can't get their act together?
Personally I don't care all that much about the origins of the virus. But what the **** were the WHO doing giving the press conference in China?
I don't either, but the reasons given for ruling out lab escape are so insultingly thin and stupid that the whole thing is obviously just a Don't let's be beastly to the Chinese exercise. So might as well go the whole hog and say so on their territory.
I think Biden is minded to come back to the WHO as proof that the insanity of Trump has ended and the US is once again a reliable partner but farcical rubbish like this won't make his job any easier.
I've been searching but I can't find ANY actual new evidence from WHO about the lab-origin theory. Just the bald assertion that they've decided it is "very unlikely"
What is their argument?
EDIT: Jesus, I found it
"Asked why, WHO's Embarek said accidental releases are extremely rare and that the team’s review of the Wuhan institute’s lab operations indicated it would be hard for anything to escape from it."
OMFG
Yup. As forensic as that.....
And taking no account of the upgrades they had seen - that had all been built in the past year before their recent inspection.
I expect to get a more detailed account in a few days when my buddy who was on the team is back. I have a call set up with him to discuss another project together.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
If it was an accidental escape, the Chinese are not going to admit it, are they? They will have covered it up, EXACTLY the same way they tried to cover up the initial outbreak, to the extent they kidnapped and "disappeared" journalists, and shuttered native research into its origin.
WHO are entirely reliant on the Chinese being honest, which, we know, they are not. This is a regime which is right now committing genocide.
It came from the lab. Which was uniquely researching novel bat coronaviruses about 1 mile from the wet market where a novel bat coronavirus miraculously jumped into humans. Believing anything else is an offense against Ockham's Razor.
They are not entirely reliant on the Chinese being honest - or open. If there is a lack of openness, or a feeling amongst the inspection team that they were being told porkies, or mis-direction, that will find its way into the report.
Let me be clear - a universally accepted truth will never come out of this - or any similar - international inspection, because the mere fact that we have got to this pass means that there are vested interests in alternative truths.
I know this is your area of expertise, but I don't believe even your first statement is true. China is so powerful, WHO will be cowed. FFS they can't even say the word "Taiwan" they are so scared. Remember this incredible interview
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
A Labour majority without Scotland is a very tall order.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
Take part in the forthcoming World economic boom instead.
After opening by strongly condemning the rioters, the Rep lawyer now embarked on a rambling speech about the nobility of politicians, heading who knows where
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Agreed thanks for the background. I remember back 1997 my Labour friends thought that Labour might just pull it off , even the night before . I was at the OU summer school in 1996 at Stirling starting my degree. Everyone said the same , I guess to used to losing. Apart from one man from Sunderland , who kept saying Labour would get a landslide. I think this country is conservative dominated in all areas of life in England, With an opposition breaking the status quo every generation to give the believe that it is a democracy . Blairs mistake was not to go for pr as he promised in 1997 to change that perception from a position of strength. Not advocating from weakness. The Labour government did that in Scotland and Wales, the next onevshould do the same . Also creating an English parliament .
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
On the other hand, I have young friends who tell me that their generation is beginning to rebel against the extremes of Woke Madness, especially the insanity surrounding trans issues (as here)
Let us hope that is true. All pendulums swing and all fashions end, usually at the extreme point (like huge flared trousers suddenly becoming ludicrous and everyone went to drainpipes). CHESTFEEDING. Jesus.
Let’s just assume, for the moment, Starmer makes a gain of 100 seats at the next election. Which seems possible, given the current situation, although by historic standards it is a pretty tough ask, having happened just twice since VJ Day. Let’s also assume 20 come from the SNP (ignore that loud bang from Ayrshire, Mrs G can repair the house later) and 80 from the Tories. Let’s also assume with that exception other parties are pretty well as you were.
That would leave Starmer on around 300, the Tories on around 285.
So @HYUFD is, to be serious, correct that the only viable government under those circumstances would be lab/SNP.
The joker would be if the Liberal Democrats can pick up another ten seats or so off the Tories, in which case they come back into play as coalition partners.
We really need the LDs to get their act together in the South West and on the South Coast.
Davey seems fixated with his Harry Potter invisibility cloak. If Starmer has disappointed, how do we categorise Davey?
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
On the other hand, I have young friends who tell me that their generation is beginning to rebel against the extremes of Woke Madness, especially the insanity surrounding trans issues (as here)
Let us hope that is true. All pendulums swing and all fashions end, usually at the extreme point (like huge flared trousers suddenly becoming ludicrous and everyone went to drainpipes). CHESTFEEDING. Jesus.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
On the other hand, I have young friends who tell me that their generation is beginning to rebel against the extremes of Woke Madness, especially the insanity surrounding trans issues (as here)
Let us hope that is true. All pendulums swing and all fashions end, usually at the extreme point (like huge flared trousers suddenly becoming ludicrous and everyone went to drainpipes). CHESTFEEDING. Jesus.
Let’s just assume, for the moment, Starmer makes a gain of 100 seats at the next election. Which seems possible, given the current situation, although by historic standards it is a pretty tough ask, having happened just twice since VJ Day. Let’s also assume 20 come from the SNP (ignore that loud bang from Ayrshire, Mrs G can repair the house later) and 80 from the Tories. Let’s also assume with that exception other parties are pretty well as you were.
That would leave Starmer on around 300, the Tories on around 285.
So @HYUFD is, to be serious, correct that the only viable government under those circumstances would be lab/SNP.
The joker would be if the Liberal Democrats can pick up another ten seats or so off the Tories, in which case they come back into play as coalition partners.
If we assume all 80 of those Lab gains from the Tories came in England, that would give:
Con - 265 Lab - 259 LD - 7 Other - 2
Which would be interesting with the Tories one short of a majority in England.
I reckon 20% on Starmer being next PM is very generous. I'd put it at around 50%, with the proviso that Covid is over as a health issue, though not an economic one.
Corbyn has gone. Brexit is done - the outcome will still be an issue, but not Brexit itself. The far, far left are either leaving Labour or being marginalised. Because of Covid, neither Starmer nor his team have had a decent hearing yet on anything other than the crisis. Starmer is no fool: policy development is well under way. The Tories' support is flattered by the pandemic and boosted by vaccination; it's not that deep, and once the health crisis is over the nation will be less inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Tories have been in power a long time. And if the Shadow Cabinet has weaknesses, these are no greater, and I would suggest less, than those in the actual Cabinet. Oh, and people like JRM wittering on about 'happy fish' will lose the Tories votes. Oh, and Boris's appeal will wear a bit thin by 2024.
I'm almost persuading myself that Starmer has a better than evens chance of next PM.
It sounds like you are pricing Starmers chance of being PM after the next GE, or even his chance of being PM after the next GE vs B Johnson. This is a huge error as the market is next PM.
If Starmer does spectacularly well, Johnson will likely be replaced by another Tory, well before the election and the bet loses. If Starmer does moderately well, he will struggle with FPTP.
To win the bet you have either Starmer hits the sweet spot where Johnson can hang on and Starmer can just deny the Tories a majority, or that he does really well only in the campaign itself, once it is too late for the Tories to switch leaders.
20% is about right, if anything a lay for the above reasons.
The Tories will go into the next election with the leader best placed to win. Simple as that.
Hard to say at this stage whether that will still be Boris, or if he has had enough/is shown the door by the Men in Grey Suits, to be replaced by Rishi, Hancock or Liz Truss.
Wow! I like your list of political Titans to replace Johnson. Can I add Williamson and Jenrick to your list?
What is going to crush you is they'd still beat Starmer...
Do you know what, if Johnson or one of his wingmen win in 2014 I am old enough and comfortable enough not to care too much.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
Yes, I agree entirely. No one has really begun to grasp how terrible this might be, economically, and it might still get much worse: if the SA Bug takes over across the EU and the UK, giving us all a tough third wave. And new variants?
There is so much risk on the downside.
Indeed my fears are greater than any Starmer win. He'll be fine. Boring but fine, he might even be good for the Union.
My fear is that the economic pain will be so shocking voters will reach for extreme solutions.
You are doing it again. Yes there is a lack of evidence around the AZ vaccine against the sa variant. BUT others have been shown to still work, but with a slightly reduced efficacy. It’s possible AZ will need updating, or we will need to pivot to the others in the coming months. But the lockdown is suppressing both the most common variant, and the Kent version and the sa version right now. If we get cases low enough, plus vaccines high enough we will open up, we will be able to test, track and trace on a few hundred cases per day. Try to stay calm. You remind me of another poster way back, Adric or something.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Agreed thanks for the background. I remember back 1997 my Labour friends thought that Labour might just pull it off , even the night before . I was at the OU summer school in 1996 at Stirling starting my degree. Everyone said the same , I guess to used to losing. Apart from one man from Sunderland , who kept saying Labour would get a landslide. I think this country is conservative dominated in all areas of life in England, With an opposition breaking the status quo every generation to give the believe that it is a democracy . Blairs mistake was not to go for pr as he promised in 1997 to change that perception from a position of strength. Not advocating from weakness. The Labour government did that in Scotland and Wales, the next onevshould do the same . Also creating an English parliament .
After the hubristic disappointment of 1992, Labour were right to doubt 1997. They are right to assume defeat in 2024 too, but that shouldn't stop them working for a landslide.
Very disappointing to see England's week-on-week decline in vaccination numbers. I think England will need to call in some Scottish experts to help get their vaccination programme back on track.
Not sure why the snark is necessary. It's only Scotland using the stockpile that has been accumulated.
Absolutely loving the "Scottish government lying about how many Care Home Residents it has vaccinated" thought line at the moment.
So, out of 36,000 Care Home residents in Scotland, only 144 have i) not given consent or ii) were not suitable because of current infection?
There aren't 36,000 older care home resident in long term care in Scotland.
As at 8:30am on Tuesday 9 February:
29,908 care home residents (99.7% of residents in older adult care homes and 93% of residents in all care homes)
Do you think they are lying about vaccinating 29,908 care home residents?
Got a link?
This says:
On 31 March 2017, there were 35,989 adults in care homes
I caught up with the CEO of an English care home chain yesterday. 85% vaccinated, very very low refusal rate. More of an issue with care workers refusing. But he said they had started late on some of homes which was why they were low
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
Variants may be popping up but enjoy, until the picture changes, this chart showing reported cases declining on every continent at once for the first time since the pandemic began.
Comments
I am not asking for cast iron policy three years out from an election. A basic to-consider list rather than a fully costed Marshall Plan for the post economic meltdown would be a start.
Based on my own inspection experience, the team would have gone into a lot more detail than you are both indicating. You cannot prove a negative, so you have to build up a bigger picture of what was actually going on. They'll have wanted to get a complete picture of the research conducted there and the involvement and actions of each of the scientists and relevant support staff, so that you get to the stage that you feel you know what was actually going on.
The engineering and technology upgrades are almost neither here nor there. Bugs can escape from even the most highly engineered labs, because humans. So understanding what was being done, by whom, and how will give us as close an understanding of the truth as is possible at this stage.
Check out the FT piece on the inspection.
https://www.ft.com/content/f07b6aa9-0746-470e-a04a-d6bba47a0a13
And then, being acquitted, he had to be given £4000 a year for life to compensate for the money he had spent in the trial. That cost the Treasury a cool £112,000 over the next 28 years.
Do they honestly want that drawn as a parallel with what’s happening now?
I feel ancient
I am not sure about ending Universal credit .
Would be a massive change in my opinion. I would try to make changes to improvem it.
Director general of the NCDC, Chikwe Ihekweazu, said they had found evidence that the lab was collecting samples and money from unsuspecting travellers, but failing to test them.
Woeful.
I admire Tory hubris on PB, but I genuinely, having studied economics, granted many decades ago, can't work out how the incumbent UK Government dodge the economic catastrophe that I foresee.
If they can dodge the bullet of economic Armageddon, that is fantastic for all of us. If they can't, and through no fault of their own, they will take such a spanking at the next GE. I suppose if Sunak keeps hosing the free borrowed money until the next election, they only have to worry about the election after next.
WHO are entirely reliant on the Chinese being honest, which, we know, they are not. This is a regime which is right now committing genocide.
It came from the lab. Which was uniquely researching novel bat coronaviruses about 1 mile from the wet market where a novel bat coronavirus miraculously jumped into humans. Believing anything else is an offense against Ockham's Razor.
The French lunch hour - famous as a bastion of the French way of life - is under threat.
The government says it’s planning to pass a new decree allowing workers to eat at their desks, a practice officially banned in the country’s labour law.
It’s actually surprising there haven’t been more of these stories around, there will be similar issues with vaccine certificates.
They may be considered the 'big beasts' because they're experienced and we know their name but the real big beasts are those that grow for the job.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't even Labour MPs when Labour lost office in 1979.
David Cameron and George Osborne weren't even Tory MPs when the Tories lost office in 1997.
Rishi Sunak wasn't even a Tory MP when the Coalition left office in 2015 (!)
Labour don't need to bring back retreads from the past. They need to find the fresh, big, quality talent for the future. Who that is I'm not sure, but its not Dodds.
The backlash against globalism is coming unless more heed is paid to the interests of those left behind" [£]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/09/business-elites-fear-revolution-hand/
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
There is so much risk on the downside.
Indeed my fears are greater than any Starmer win. He'll be fine. Boring but fine, he might even be good for the Union.
My fear is that the economic pain will be so shocking voters will reach for extreme solutions.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
(I have worked with Frenchmen who did indeed think it their God-given right to take 3 hours over lunch.....)
Isn't this decision just redistributing August?
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
If not impossible, its the next best thing.
Brighton has been nutjob central for quite some time.
The Great Bacon Butty Ban?
This one does not even make sense in cloud cuckoo land imo. Boobs are boobs are boobs.
I don't even see how "chest-feeding" is trans-friendly, even if you are following a transgenderist ideology.
I'm not one to make a prediction for Labour. If someone here could then it would make a very interesting thread.
“When you deal with a world order where certain countries are big enough to create their own truths, you’re never going to get to a situation where there’s universally accepted truths,” said Tim Trevan, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and co-founder of Chrome Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting. “China and America are already lining up to come to different conclusions.”
No trans-women will be breastfeeding anyway so it doesn't help them and I can't imagine many biological women will be giving birth, breastfeeding and deciding they're actually a trans-man all at the same time.
Its just nonsense.
Whereas the reality is that it’s a facility with reasonably competent scientists, and we just don’t know.
Let us hope that is true. All pendulums swing and all fashions end, usually at the extreme point (like huge flared trousers suddenly becoming ludicrous and everyone went to drainpipes). CHESTFEEDING. Jesus.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
That would leave Starmer on around 300, the Tories on around 285.
So @HYUFD is, to be serious, correct that the only viable government under those circumstances would be lab/SNP.
The joker would be if the Liberal Democrats can pick up another ten seats or so off the Tories, in which case they come back into play as coalition partners.
The side effects for the participants and the wider public, however, are not conducive to anything other than right of centre governments...
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1359230131739500550
Not noted for his denialism. I think 8 March is acceptable as by then hospital admissions should have reached acceptable levels. But no further.
Let me be clear - a universally accepted truth will never come out of this - or any similar - international inspection, because the mere fact that we have got to this pass means that there are vested interests in alternative truths.
Not that it affects me directly either way.
I have consistently said throughout last year, Tory lead, post vaccine. I don't believe that will continue, and fortunes will be reversed.
Probably in 2022, give or take a year, the medical profession themselves will accept the futility of continuing the battle and they will agree that the restrictions have to be scaled back. COVID-19 is bad, but it is barely a real pandemic due to its low mortality. This latest news about the Bristol mutation is totally unsurprising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE
And you’re surely not arguing that he isn’t a massive dick ?
FWIW, I dislike ties, as they tend to restrict blood flow to the brain. Though I own many, I rarely wear them.
I remember back 1997 my Labour friends thought that Labour might just pull it off , even the night before .
I was at the OU summer school in 1996 at Stirling starting my degree.
Everyone said the same , I guess to used to losing.
Apart from one man from Sunderland , who kept saying Labour would get a landslide.
I think this country is conservative dominated in all areas of life in England,
With an opposition breaking the status quo every generation to give the believe that it is a democracy .
Blairs mistake was not to go for pr as he promised in 1997 to change that perception from a position of strength.
Not advocating from weakness.
The Labour government did that in Scotland and Wales, the next onevshould do the same .
Also creating an English parliament .
BOOBFEEDING
AREOLAFEEDING
BOSOMFEEDING
KNOCKERFEEDING
NIPPLEFEEDING
BRISTOLFEEDING
MELONFEEDING
HOOTERFEEDING
JUGFEEDING
Davey seems fixated with his Harry Potter invisibility cloak. If Starmer has disappointed, how do we categorise Davey?
Con - 265
Lab - 259
LD - 7
Other - 2
Which would be interesting with the Tories one short of a majority in England.
This is poor, risible lawyering
You'll be cancelled.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
When I worked in NZ the hospital dress code permitted shorts, but only with long socks. Very 1950's!