Howdy, Stranger!

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

Johnson is still trailing Starmer in the leader ratings – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited February 10 in General
imageJohnson is still trailing Starmer in the leader ratings – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Starmer is the new Cameron and Johnson is the new Ed Miliband?
  • Test
  • But Starmer will still lose as he is Captain Hindsight and Mr No Personality!
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863
    Save for a narrow sect of far leftists, Keir Starmer hasn't been obliged to upset anybody yet.

    When we're three months out from the next GE, as opposed to three years and three months, perhaps these numbers might have some conceivable relevance?
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,772
    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 7,229

    Save for a narrow sect of far leftists, Keir Starmer hasn't been obliged to upset anybody yet.

    When we're three months out from the next GE, as opposed to three years and three months, perhaps these numbers might have some conceivable relevance?

    Indeed. Absolutely irrelevant at this stage in the game.
  • Redfield's wording is very pro Johnson and firm has no record

    If there were to be a General Election in the United Kingdom in the near future, when it is safe for an election to be held, for which party would you vote?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,576
    Starmer is only about level pegging on approval, it's the No strong feelings vote that puts him ahead on net figures. No ringing endorsements here.
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
  • All UK GE related polls are not of significance before 2024
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,647
    Nah, these are very workable numbers for Boris. The vaccine rollout has only just hit the public consciousness in the last week or so, and if Boris' brand becomes The Man Who Outjabbed The World, then good luck to Sir Human Shade of Beige in countering it effectively.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,576
    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 922
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    Shut borders now, flexible with them in summer.

    When you say shut borders now, what you mean in terms of detail? Boris used the argument last week we need them open for trade and business.

    And one supplementary if I may, do you support the governments don’t book any holiday wait and see message this evening?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,576

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    Good find.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863


    Four councils in England are being bailed out by the government because they are unable to balance their books.

    Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick said the pandemic was responsible in some cases, but in others "very poor management" was to blame.

    The authorities named as being in the most serious trouble are Eastbourne, Bexley, Luton and Peterborough.
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    That's like a decade ago, I believe OGH's view has evolved, I think the 2011 Scottish elections and 2015 GE shows why the net ratings are key, rather than absolute figures.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,282

    Nah, these are very workable numbers for Boris. The vaccine rollout has only just hit the public consciousness in the last week or so, and if Boris' brand becomes The Man Who Outjabbed The World, then good luck to Sir Human Shade of Beige in countering it effectively.

    I suspect those tories who are expecting the thanks of a grateful nation are going to be disappointed. Really, really disappointed.

  • IshmaelZ said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    Good find.
    @isam found it, I bookmarked it as I knew it would come back up again.

    Oddly enough when isam shared it, I remembered it at the time - though I don't know if that was just deja vu.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    A decent move for Boris over a month. -4 to +3 with R&W.

    Starmer has gone from +9 to +8 same pollster same period.

  • felixfelix Posts: 12,170
    https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2021-02-10/spains-regions-favor-higher-age-limit-for-astrazeneca-vaccine.html?ssm=FB_CM_EN&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0KxHijh7t6TE6jTF3mSWfSKyB0E-dhYH3OMwwDzj_mYijaP2x97Ra4tgQ#Echobox=1612977887

    Some common sense about AZN but just look at this below: WTAF!

    "In Murcia, a regional daily has revealed that the bishop of Cartagena, José Manuel Lorca Planes, as well as other leading Catholic Church officials in the southeastern region passed themselves off as chaplains of a senior care home in order to receive the coronavirus vaccine ahead of time. Prosecutors are now investigating whether the five individuals who cheated their way into getting early inoculations should be charged with crimes, La Opinión de Murcia reported."
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,647

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
  • MaxPB said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
    All things being equal I'd agree with you, my only issue is that I'm not sure the normal rule of politics and polling applies during a pandemic.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    It's the end of the Kier show.....
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 985
    This is interesting. Presumably, it’ll mean the govt will push for divergence from EU.

    I can see the UK moving away from the EU regulatory orbit going forward - just seems no desire to find a way to accommodate the relationship
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,576

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    Joke.

    I love dodgy mnemonics, as in which of brass and bronZe contains Zinc? And E is for Eggcup for recognising cardinal marks.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    Keir Keir Keir Keir KEIR!!! So there. :tongue:
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,576

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    I before E except after Corbyn (we owe this to @AlastairMeeks I think).
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    That's like a decade ago, I believe OGH's view has evolved, I think the 2011 Scottish elections and 2015 GE shows why the net ratings are key, rather than absolute figures.
    Have the leading academic political scientists who tracked this changed their mind on the satisfaction figure being more important than the negatives?

    2015 gave good reason to show that leadership ratings were as or more important than party ratings - but why that net ratings are key rather than absolute figures? The absolute figures in 2015 worked extremely well.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    Keir Keir Keir Keir KEIR!!! So there. :tongue:
    The Keir Apparent.

    No, he really will reveal his true self. Just wait...

    And wait.

    Honest, he'll get round to it. Eventually.

    It will be worth the wait.

    Ahem.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863
    Poor Keir. Reduced to a series of appalling jokes.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    However. If the Tories can attract those 42% to vote for them then they will be impossible to beat regardless.
    As per 2017.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,647

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    Keir Keir Keir Keir KEIR!!! So there. :tongue:
    You got me. It's mostly just a game to wind up @Anabobazina :wink:

    Just think of 'Keith' or 'Sir Keira Knightly' and you'll never get it wrong.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    So its Kieth?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,835
    Scott_xP said:
    What great news. I hope things go well for her. She has a pretty tragic maternity history.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/stella-creasy-reveals-nearly-walked-20075789
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    Keir Keir Keir Keir KEIR!!! So there. :tongue:
    You got me. It's mostly just a game to wind up @Anabobazina :wink:

    Just think of 'Keith' or 'Sir Keira Knightly' and you'll never get it wrong.
    Or alternatively
    K😊
    E😊
    I😊
    R😊
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850

    MaxPB said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
    All things being equal I'd agree with you, my only issue is that I'm not sure the normal rule of politics and polling applies during a pandemic.
    I think I'd be open to the argument if Boris had run country well during the pandemic but it's been misstep after misstep for a year. Starmer has had plenty of open goals on border closures, isolation and testing failures among others. He could have been out there properly creating a huge ruckus about this stuff but instead he got bogged down in lawyerly contracts for mates issues that no one really gives a fuck about and prices into a Tory government anyway. He should have been smashing the government on our porous border for months and now he'd look like a prophet and be able take a victory lap.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    Keir Keir Keir Keir KEIR!!! So there. :tongue:
    The Keir Apparent.
    Is Keir the heir to Bleir?

    Neir. :confused:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 15,760
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    We are certainly not all going to be "vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May" in the UK. If you include AZ and set the bar at just one dose then yes, end of May is possible, but a lot will have had AZ.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    It's the end of the Kier show.....
    Why doesn’t he just change it to Kir. Sir Kir. That would make life simpler, and also make him slightly interesting.

    Or indeed just go the whole hog and change his entire name to Lord Pizzleface Von Hooterbutt. No way you’d ever forget THAT guy. His Don’t Knows would crater overnight and he’d be sailing to electoral triumph
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    That's like a decade ago, I believe OGH's view has evolved, I think the 2011 Scottish elections and 2015 GE shows why the net ratings are key, rather than absolute figures.
    Have the leading academic political scientists who tracked this changed their mind on the satisfaction figure being more important than the negatives?

    2015 gave good reason to show that leadership ratings were as or more important than party ratings - but why that net ratings are key rather than absolute figures? The absolute figures in 2015 worked extremely well.
    Some of them have always argued that net is better.

    Why net is better is because of the complexity of the British voting environment, there's a high level of tactical voting in some places because we're not a two party state like say America. The third largest party (by size of MPs contests just over 9% of the seats.)

    The net figures were a key pointer to why Dave was more even popular in Lib Dem held seats than he was in Con/Lab marginals.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
    All things being equal I'd agree with you, my only issue is that I'm not sure the normal rule of politics and polling applies during a pandemic.
    I think I'd be open to the argument if Boris had run country well during the pandemic but it's been misstep after misstep for a year. Starmer has had plenty of open goals on border closures, isolation and testing failures among others. He could have been out there properly creating a huge ruckus about this stuff but instead he got bogged down in lawyerly contracts for mates issues that no one really gives a fuck about and prices into a Tory government anyway. He should have been smashing the government on our porous border for months and now he'd look like a prophet and be able take a victory lap.
    One Labour frontbencher tells me: “In our focus groups, the more we attack the government, the more people don’t like it.” The accusation that the government has been too slow to take measures to control the virus resonates with the public because they largely agree. “Anywhere else you attack them, you have people saying, ‘That’s not fair.’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-bad-taste-question-about-covid-that-everyone-at-westminster-is-asking

    I do know a couple of pollsters who told me the same.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 922
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    It’s the money London makes from this stuff that pays for us having an NHS so it has to fight back.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,772

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    We are certainly not all going to be "vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May" in the UK. If you include AZ and set the bar at just one dose then yes, end of May is possible, but a lot will have had AZ.
    Define all? Because there are going to be a substantial minority (10%? 30%?) of hold-outs who simply won't want to to be vaccinated.

    But my working assumption is that the government will do initial shots of AZ for most people, and then will follow it up with Pfizer/Moderna/CureVac for second doses. I suspect that that regime will have 95% (or thereabouts) efficacy.

    Other than the 12 week gap between doses that we currently use for AZN, why wouldn't we have reached 70% of the country "doubly jabbed" in four months? That doesn't sound like a very ambitious target to me.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
    All things being equal I'd agree with you, my only issue is that I'm not sure the normal rule of politics and polling applies during a pandemic.
    I think I'd be open to the argument if Boris had run country well during the pandemic but it's been misstep after misstep for a year. Starmer has had plenty of open goals on border closures, isolation and testing failures among others. He could have been out there properly creating a huge ruckus about this stuff but instead he got bogged down in lawyerly contracts for mates issues that no one really gives a fuck about and prices into a Tory government anyway. He should have been smashing the government on our porous border for months and now he'd look like a prophet and be able take a victory lap.
    One Labour frontbencher tells me: “In our focus groups, the more we attack the government, the more people don’t like it.” The accusation that the government has been too slow to take measures to control the virus resonates with the public because they largely agree. “Anywhere else you attack them, you have people saying, ‘That’s not fair.’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-bad-taste-question-about-covid-that-everyone-at-westminster-is-asking

    I do know a couple of pollsters who told me the same.
    That's following not leading and it's why Starmer won't become PM. Opposition by focus group is why his ratings are so awful.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    EFC Spurs was a decent first half.
  • Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    But the question is how are we going to make up the tax revenues, and this is merely the hors d'oeuvre.

    The clearing transition ends next summer.

    It's going to be the anti big bang next summer if that isn't resolved.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    But the question is how are we going to make up the tax revenues, and this is merely the hors d'oeuvre.

    The clearing transition ends next summer.

    It's going to be the anti big bang next summer if that isn't resolved.
    War
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
    All things being equal I'd agree with you, my only issue is that I'm not sure the normal rule of politics and polling applies during a pandemic.
    I think I'd be open to the argument if Boris had run country well during the pandemic but it's been misstep after misstep for a year. Starmer has had plenty of open goals on border closures, isolation and testing failures among others. He could have been out there properly creating a huge ruckus about this stuff but instead he got bogged down in lawyerly contracts for mates issues that no one really gives a fuck about and prices into a Tory government anyway. He should have been smashing the government on our porous border for months and now he'd look like a prophet and be able take a victory lap.
    One Labour frontbencher tells me: “In our focus groups, the more we attack the government, the more people don’t like it.” The accusation that the government has been too slow to take measures to control the virus resonates with the public because they largely agree. “Anywhere else you attack them, you have people saying, ‘That’s not fair.’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-bad-taste-question-about-covid-that-everyone-at-westminster-is-asking

    I do know a couple of pollsters who told me the same.
    That's following not leading and it's why Starmer won't become PM. Opposition by focus group is why his ratings are so awful.
    I'll let you into a little secret, the only two LOTOs in the last 40 years to become PM used focus groups heavily to guide the leadership in opposition.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,772
    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    Shut borders now, flexible with them in summer.

    When you say shut borders now, what you mean in terms of detail? Boris used the argument last week we need them open for trade and business.

    And one supplementary if I may, do you support the governments don’t book any holiday wait and see message this evening?
    I would require the following:

    - negative PCR test the day before travel
    - antigen tests for all arrivals

    If the antigen tests are all negative, then a simple 48 hour hotel visit is probably sufficient (with a negative PCR test a requirement for leaving.) I'd add one proviso: if anyone from a flight tests positive, then everyone on that flight needs to be considered at risk and needs to be quarantined for 14 days.

    I think that would cut 99.9% of imported cases without being as onerous as the 14 days for all visitors proposals.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    We are certainly not all going to be "vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May" in the UK. If you include AZ and set the bar at just one dose then yes, end of May is possible, but a lot will have had AZ.
    Define all? Because there are going to be a substantial minority (10%? 30%?) of hold-outs who simply won't want to to be vaccinated.

    But my working assumption is that the government will do initial shots of AZ for most people, and then will follow it up with Pfizer/Moderna/CureVac for second doses. I suspect that that regime will have 95% (or thereabouts) efficacy.

    Other than the 12 week gap between doses that we currently use for AZN, why wouldn't we have reached 70% of the country "doubly jabbed" in four months? That doesn't sound like a very ambitious target to me.
    I don't know that the study will be finished in time for that to happen, but it may be possible for the last 20m people to get two types of vaccine. Our salvation lies in Novavax in the short term as the government will be able to run that programme simultaneously with the others allowing a huge capacity increase for first jabs while we do second ones.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    But the question is how are we going to make up the tax revenues, and this is merely the hors d'oeuvre.

    The clearing transition ends next summer.

    It's going to be the anti big bang next summer if that isn't resolved.
    War
    I assume you'll be joining the armed forces then.

    Navy, Army, Marines, or RAF?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 64,268
    rcs1000 said:


    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.

    The chances of that happening are zero.
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    That's like a decade ago, I believe OGH's view has evolved, I think the 2011 Scottish elections and 2015 GE shows why the net ratings are key, rather than absolute figures.
    Have the leading academic political scientists who tracked this changed their mind on the satisfaction figure being more important than the negatives?

    2015 gave good reason to show that leadership ratings were as or more important than party ratings - but why that net ratings are key rather than absolute figures? The absolute figures in 2015 worked extremely well.
    Some of them have always argued that net is better.

    Why net is better is because of the complexity of the British voting environment, there's a high level of tactical voting in some places because we're not a two party state like say America. The third largest party (by size of MPs contests just over 9% of the seats.)

    The net figures were a key pointer to why Dave was more even popular in Lib Dem held seats than he was in Con/Lab marginals.
    I couldn't disagree more. There's not that high a level of tactical voting in this country: in America the absence of third parties forces people to "vote for the lesser of two evils". The old running joke but rather absent last year in US elections is "this year I'm voting for Cthulu, why vote for the lesser evil".

    In British elections the fact we're not a two party state means that people who don't approve of either party leader have a third or fourth party to vote for instead.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,863
    gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    It’s the money London makes from this stuff that pays for us having an NHS so it has to fight back.
    The gist of the article is that 1. this change will have a limited impact on tax revenues and won't result in large scale job losses, and 2. the lost activity in this specific area probably isn't coming back, because the UK Government isn't interested in negotiating equivalence (which I take, not being an authority on these things, to mean that UK and EU financial regulation would be moved closely enough together that the EU opens these markets back up to London-based traders.)

    Apparently the Government considers that the advantages of regulatory divergence outweigh the additional access that would be gained from a closer alignment with EU rules.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    But the question is how are we going to make up the tax revenues, and this is merely the hors d'oeuvre.

    The clearing transition ends next summer.

    It's going to be the anti big bang next summer if that isn't resolved.
    War
    I assume you'll be joining the armed forces then.

    Navy, Army, Marines, or RAF?
    Black Ops. Already been recruited.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    It's the end of the Kier show.....
    Why doesn’t he just change it to Kir. Sir Kir. That would make life simpler, and also make him slightly interesting.

    Or indeed just go the whole hog and change his entire name to Lord Pizzleface Von Hooterbutt. No way you’d ever forget THAT guy. His Don’t Knows would crater overnight and he’d be sailing to electoral triumph
    Kir does sound...well, a bit Royale.
  • Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    That's like a decade ago, I believe OGH's view has evolved, I think the 2011 Scottish elections and 2015 GE shows why the net ratings are key, rather than absolute figures.
    Have the leading academic political scientists who tracked this changed their mind on the satisfaction figure being more important than the negatives?

    2015 gave good reason to show that leadership ratings were as or more important than party ratings - but why that net ratings are key rather than absolute figures? The absolute figures in 2015 worked extremely well.
    Some of them have always argued that net is better.

    Why net is better is because of the complexity of the British voting environment, there's a high level of tactical voting in some places because we're not a two party state like say America. The third largest party (by size of MPs contests just over 9% of the seats.)

    The net figures were a key pointer to why Dave was more even popular in Lib Dem held seats than he was in Con/Lab marginals.
    I couldn't disagree more. There's not that high a level of tactical voting in this country: in America the absence of third parties forces people to "vote for the lesser of two evils". The old running joke but rather absent last year in US elections is "this year I'm voting for Cthulu, why vote for the lesser evil".

    In British elections the fact we're not a two party state means that people who don't approve of either party leader have a third or fourth party to vote for instead.
    Yes there was, in LD/Con seats there was, when that unwound in 2015 it saw the Tory pretty much wipe out the Lib Dems.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    London will fight back. It always does. Calm yourself
    But the question is how are we going to make up the tax revenues, and this is merely the hors d'oeuvre.

    The clearing transition ends next summer.

    It's going to be the anti big bang next summer if that isn't resolved.
    War
    I assume you'll be joining the armed forces then.

    Navy, Army, Marines, or RAF?
    Black Ops. Already been recruited.
    Then we're fucked.

    The UK's biggest military humiliation nailed on, like Patay, Singapore, and Suez combined.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    The high levels of DK for Starmer after this long is a bad sign. He's had enough time to make an impression but he's still losing out to Piers Morgan as leader of the opposition.
    All things being equal I'd agree with you, my only issue is that I'm not sure the normal rule of politics and polling applies during a pandemic.
    I think I'd be open to the argument if Boris had run country well during the pandemic but it's been misstep after misstep for a year. Starmer has had plenty of open goals on border closures, isolation and testing failures among others. He could have been out there properly creating a huge ruckus about this stuff but instead he got bogged down in lawyerly contracts for mates issues that no one really gives a fuck about and prices into a Tory government anyway. He should have been smashing the government on our porous border for months and now he'd look like a prophet and be able take a victory lap.
    One Labour frontbencher tells me: “In our focus groups, the more we attack the government, the more people don’t like it.” The accusation that the government has been too slow to take measures to control the virus resonates with the public because they largely agree. “Anywhere else you attack them, you have people saying, ‘That’s not fair.’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-bad-taste-question-about-covid-that-everyone-at-westminster-is-asking

    I do know a couple of pollsters who told me the same.
    That's following not leading and it's why Starmer won't become PM. Opposition by focus group is why his ratings are so awful.
    I'll let you into a little secret, the only two LOTOs in the last 40 years to become PM used focus groups heavily to guide the leadership in opposition.
    They still had some original ideas though. I knew what Dave stood for in 2010 and everyone knew what Blair stood for in 1997. Focus groups were there to hone the message, not create it which is what Starmer is currently letting happen. It's opposition by committee and it doesn't work.

    The policy should have been "lets hit the government with everything we've got on the border" and then focus groups should have been run to find the right messaging for that policy. Starmer has run focus groups to find policy ideas, it's why everything he says is bland and about three months too late.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    Shut borders now, flexible with them in summer.

    When you say shut borders now, what you mean in terms of detail? Boris used the argument last week we need them open for trade and business.

    And one supplementary if I may, do you support the governments don’t book any holiday wait and see message this evening?
    I would require the following:

    - negative PCR test the day before travel
    - antigen tests for all arrivals

    If the antigen tests are all negative, then a simple 48 hour hotel visit is probably sufficient (with a negative PCR test a requirement for leaving.) I'd add one proviso: if anyone from a flight tests positive, then everyone on that flight needs to be considered at risk and needs to be quarantined for 14 days.

    I think that would cut 99.9% of imported cases without being as onerous as the 14 days for all visitors proposals.
    Exactly. It can be done. Reducing risk to near zero, yet allowing travel to continue. Chuck in vaccine passports and you’ve got a viable way for travel to actually recover

    You can never have Absolute Zero risk. Getting on a plane is itself a risk.

    At some point the political control of policy-making, on this question, has to be taken away from the doctors who only want us to drink 0.4 units of alcohol a week, as there is a measurably increased risk of blah blah blah
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,313
    edited February 10

    Trailing?

    Redfield Approval
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 34%
    Johnson leads by 8%

    IPSOS MORI Satisfied
    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 40%
    Johnson leads by 2%

    Johnson leads in Approval/Satisfied. If people disapprove of Johnson but don't approve of Starmer and decide to vote for Lib Dems or Greens etc then that works just fine for Johnson.

    How long have you been on this site?

    The net figures are what is the best comparator, history has consistently shown that.
    Since when? That's not what OGH was writing in 2011.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/should-the-blues-be-worried-about-daves-ratings-collapse/

    As PB regulars know I take a lot of notice leadership approval ratings particuarly those from MORI which has been asking the same questions for more than thirty years.

    Also, taking the lead from several leading academic political scientists who track this, my main focus is on the “satisfaction” figure and I’m less concerned about the negatives. In terms of predicting electoral outcomes it’s the proportion saying they are satisfied that is key. Whether they “don’t know” or are not satisfied is irrelevant – they are not ready to be positive.
    That's like a decade ago, I believe OGH's view has evolved, I think the 2011 Scottish elections and 2015 GE shows why the net ratings are key, rather than absolute figures.
    Have the leading academic political scientists who tracked this changed their mind on the satisfaction figure being more important than the negatives?

    2015 gave good reason to show that leadership ratings were as or more important than party ratings - but why that net ratings are key rather than absolute figures? The absolute figures in 2015 worked extremely well.
    Some of them have always argued that net is better.

    Why net is better is because of the complexity of the British voting environment, there's a high level of tactical voting in some places because we're not a two party state like say America. The third largest party (by size of MPs contests just over 9% of the seats.)

    The net figures were a key pointer to why Dave was more even popular in Lib Dem held seats than he was in Con/Lab marginals.
    I couldn't disagree more. There's not that high a level of tactical voting in this country: in America the absence of third parties forces people to "vote for the lesser of two evils". The old running joke but rather absent last year in US elections is "this year I'm voting for Cthulu, why vote for the lesser evil".

    In British elections the fact we're not a two party state means that people who don't approve of either party leader have a third or fourth party to vote for instead.
    Yes there was, in LD/Con seats there was, when that unwound in 2015 it saw the Tory pretty much wipe out the Lib Dems.
    The Tories wiped them out? Think you're rewriting history there.

    The Lib Dems lost seats across the board to the Tories, SNP and Labour. Labour and the SNP didn't win Lib Dem seats due to Cameron's net favourability.

    In LD/Con seats they lost to Con because the LDs lost comprehensively.
    In LD/Lab seats they lost to Lab because the LDs lost comprehensively.
    In LD/SNP seats they lost to SNP because the LDs lost comprehensively.

    Its not about Cameron, its about the LDs losing consistently across the board.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,996
    The tone of MG's original letter guaranteed this response. Granted, very minimal concessions were always the likeliest outcome, but the EU literally couldn't have given more without seeming to have given in to a monstering from Michael Gove.

    We'll just have to go for Article 16 then, which does seem to have been the plan all along.
  • If you're not watching it then you should be, on BT Sport 1.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 6,378
    Scott_xP said:
    If all those swaggering, 'Project Fear' Leavers aren't now thinking of the words of Lord Melbourne then they bloody well should be:

    'What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.'
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    We are certainly not all going to be "vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May" in the UK. If you include AZ and set the bar at just one dose then yes, end of May is possible, but a lot will have had AZ.
    Define all? Because there are going to be a substantial minority (10%? 30%?) of hold-outs who simply won't want to to be vaccinated.

    But my working assumption is that the government will do initial shots of AZ for most people, and then will follow it up with Pfizer/Moderna/CureVac for second doses. I suspect that that regime will have 95% (or thereabouts) efficacy.

    Other than the 12 week gap between doses that we currently use for AZN, why wouldn't we have reached 70% of the country "doubly jabbed" in four months? That doesn't sound like a very ambitious target to me.
    I don't know that the study will be finished in time for that to happen, but it may be possible for the last 20m people to get two types of vaccine. Our salvation lies in Novavax in the short term as the government will be able to run that programme simultaneously with the others allowing a huge capacity increase for first jabs while we do second ones.
    Given that the trial only involves 800 participants, it won't be accumulating any real case data basically ever. So I imagine they will only be looking at immunogenic response, which can be done fairly quickly - basically the delay between doses and the time period of follow up - but won't be completely convincing about which option is better against which variant(s).

    Recruitment was this month, so useful immunogenic results in May-June, perhaps?

    --AS
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    It's the end of the Kier show.....
    Why doesn’t he just change it to Kir. Sir Kir. That would make life simpler, and also make him slightly interesting.

    Or indeed just go the whole hog and change his entire name to Lord Pizzleface Von Hooterbutt. No way you’d ever forget THAT guy. His Don’t Knows would crater overnight and he’d be sailing to electoral triumph
    Alternatively, he could adopt the affectation of wearing a full suit of samurai armour.

    With swords and everything.

    And become mute.

    Just occasionally beheading a member of the Shadow Cabinet. They would up their game - without a word being said.

    "That Labour samurai guy - he's not somebody to mess with, is he? I could vote for him...."
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all those swaggering, 'Project Fear' Leavers aren't now thinking of the words of Lord Melbourne then they bloody well should be:

    'What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.'
    Nah. That will be in the time interval between announcing that they are mucking around with Ireland and President Biden getting on the phone.

    I give it about thirty seconds.
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all those swaggering, 'Project Fear' Leavers aren't now thinking of the words of Lord Melbourne then they bloody well should be:

    'What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.'
    I assume you mean since Brexit has happened pretty much without a hitch and with little for you to bitch and moan about without a magnifying glass that the damned fools are those who said that there would be teething problems and adjustments but that life would go on just fine?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,835

    The tone of MG's original letter guaranteed this response. Granted, very minimal concessions were always the likeliest outcome, but the EU literally couldn't have given more without seeming to have given in to a monstering from Michael Gove.

    We'll just have to go for Article 16 then, which does seem to have been the plan all along.
    It is funny how keen Brexiteers are to tear up the deal that they were saying was a great deal just 6 weeks ago.

    Its almost as if they neither read nor understood it.
  • This prosecution case against Trump is incredibly well put together.

    If the GOP Senators have any self-respect they'll struggle to vote to acquit.
  • Foxy said:

    The tone of MG's original letter guaranteed this response. Granted, very minimal concessions were always the likeliest outcome, but the EU literally couldn't have given more without seeming to have given in to a monstering from Michael Gove.

    We'll just have to go for Article 16 then, which does seem to have been the plan all along.
    It is funny how keen Brexiteers are to tear up the deal that they were saying was a great deal just 6 weeks ago.

    Its almost as if they neither read nor understood it.
    Invoking Article 16 isn't tearing up the deal, it is exercising an article of the deal.

    If the article wasn't meant to be exercised then why did the EU sign it? 🤔
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,772
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:


    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.

    The chances of that happening are zero.
    We're going to be rolling in vaccines by the end of March (and yes, that includes having lots of Pfizer by that point). That means that we should be able to do a million doses a day.

    We're also going to be able to look to Israel and see what "fully vaccinated" looks like by that point.

    If new variants get into Israel and spread like wildfire among the vaccinated population, then sure, worry. But if Israel is basically Covid free at the end of March (except for in communities that are sceptical of the modern world) then we should take it as a sign.

    We'll know we're going to be free, and sooner rather than later.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    We are certainly not all going to be "vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May" in the UK. If you include AZ and set the bar at just one dose then yes, end of May is possible, but a lot will have had AZ.
    Define all? Because there are going to be a substantial minority (10%? 30%?) of hold-outs who simply won't want to to be vaccinated.

    But my working assumption is that the government will do initial shots of AZ for most people, and then will follow it up with Pfizer/Moderna/CureVac for second doses. I suspect that that regime will have 95% (or thereabouts) efficacy.

    Other than the 12 week gap between doses that we currently use for AZN, why wouldn't we have reached 70% of the country "doubly jabbed" in four months? That doesn't sound like a very ambitious target to me.
    I don't know that the study will be finished in time for that to happen, but it may be possible for the last 20m people to get two types of vaccine. Our salvation lies in Novavax in the short term as the government will be able to run that programme simultaneously with the others allowing a huge capacity increase for first jabs while we do second ones.
    Given that the trial only involves 800 participants, it won't be accumulating any real case data basically ever. So I imagine they will only be looking at immunogenic response, which can be done fairly quickly - basically the delay between doses and the time period of follow up - but won't be completely convincing about which option is better against which variant(s).

    Recruitment was this month, so useful immunogenic results in May-June, perhaps?

    --AS
    My uncle has got his first dose of it on Friday at UCL, I forwarded him the link from here. He's 52 and figured it would allow him to get immunised a couple of months early in return for a few blood samples at weeks 4, 12 and 14.

    However, even with a fast start the results won't be available until week 14 and then a week or so to compile the results, assuming they fill the trial quickly. That means it's going to 16 weeks from the 15th before the government can start doing mixed doses backed by human trials which takes us to the middle of May by which time 20m or so people will already have had both doses of either Pfizer/AZ and we'll have got Moderna and Novavax in place.

    I actually see this as the UK government doing this research to help developing nations where record keeping will be difficult and ensuring that people get two doses of any vaccine is more important than making sure they are the same. If we can prove that it doesn't matter if they are the same then it's a huge deal for the whole world.
    If the mix-and-match trial works then does that mean that all vaccines can then be mixed and matched?

    Or only the specific combination tested upon?
  • Starmer is the new Cameron and Johnson is the new Ed Miliband?

    SKSICIPM
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354
    "Prosecutors in Fulton County have initiated a criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to overturn Georgia’s election results, including a phone call he made to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Mr. Trump pressured him to “find” enough votes to help him reverse his loss."

    NYTimes
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

    the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

    But I could be wrong.
    What was the flaw in RCS argument?

    Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

    Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

    Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?
    Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

    The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

    And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

    That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.
    We are certainly not all going to be "vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May" in the UK. If you include AZ and set the bar at just one dose then yes, end of May is possible, but a lot will have had AZ.
    Define all? Because there are going to be a substantial minority (10%? 30%?) of hold-outs who simply won't want to to be vaccinated.

    But my working assumption is that the government will do initial shots of AZ for most people, and then will follow it up with Pfizer/Moderna/CureVac for second doses. I suspect that that regime will have 95% (or thereabouts) efficacy.

    Other than the 12 week gap between doses that we currently use for AZN, why wouldn't we have reached 70% of the country "doubly jabbed" in four months? That doesn't sound like a very ambitious target to me.
    I don't know that the study will be finished in time for that to happen, but it may be possible for the last 20m people to get two types of vaccine. Our salvation lies in Novavax in the short term as the government will be able to run that programme simultaneously with the others allowing a huge capacity increase for first jabs while we do second ones.
    Given that the trial only involves 800 participants, it won't be accumulating any real case data basically ever. So I imagine they will only be looking at immunogenic response, which can be done fairly quickly - basically the delay between doses and the time period of follow up - but won't be completely convincing about which option is better against which variant(s).

    Recruitment was this month, so useful immunogenic results in May-June, perhaps?

    --AS
    My uncle has got his first dose of it on Friday at UCL, I forwarded him the link from here. He's 52 and figured it would allow him to get immunised a couple of months early in return for a few blood samples at weeks 4, 12 and 14.

    However, even with a fast start the results won't be available until week 14 and then a week or so to compile the results, assuming they fill the trial quickly. That means it's going to 16 weeks from the 15th before the government can start doing mixed doses backed by human trials which takes us to the middle of May by which time 20m or so people will already have had both doses of either Pfizer/AZ and we'll have got Moderna and Novavax in place.

    I actually see this as the UK government doing this research to help developing nations where record keeping will be difficult and ensuring that people get two doses of any vaccine is more important than making sure they are the same. If we can prove that it doesn't matter if they are the same then it's a huge deal for the whole world.
    If the mix-and-match trial works then does that mean that all vaccines can then be mixed and matched?

    Or only the specific combination tested upon?
    I don't know, I guess the regulator will make a judgement call.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    The standout figure is the 34% who neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer. Hasn’t changed in a month. My guess is most of them can barely name him.

    I bet the stats for Corbyn were way better in this respect. You certainly recognized him, and had opinions on him.

    Starmer is anonymous, bland and boring. I cannot recall one single thing he has said, not a joke, not a riff, not a gaffe, nothing. He’s a nullity.

    From the start I knew that Corbyn wore vests, had an allotment, was a cranky Marxist, liked the IRA, owned a cat, had oddly sexy wives, feted Palestinian terrorists, went on holiday with Diane Abbott

    Much of this is intensely dislikable, for me, but at least I had a sense of the man. I have no grasp on Kier Starmer. I’ve only recently learned how to spell his first name

    Kier Is Exactly Right is a handy mnemonic.
    Keir, not Kier
    No, no, no, it's definitely 'Kier'. Remember, 'I before E, except after C'. Easy.
    Keith?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,772
    Mitt's pretty fit for a guy in his mid 70s.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 985
    Foxy said:

    The tone of MG's original letter guaranteed this response. Granted, very minimal concessions were always the likeliest outcome, but the EU literally couldn't have given more without seeming to have given in to a monstering from Michael Gove.

    We'll just have to go for Article 16 then, which does seem to have been the plan all along.
    It is funny how keen Brexiteers are to tear up the deal that they were saying was a great deal just 6 weeks ago.

    Its almost as if they neither read nor understood it.
    Seemingly the EU never read the bloody thing either
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 985

    Scott_xP said:
    If all those swaggering, 'Project Fear' Leavers aren't now thinking of the words of Lord Melbourne then they bloody well should be:

    'What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.'
    Ultimately we’re going to be in this cycle of tit for tat for years. I.e some positive manufacturing news deemed as success. The city losing trade - Brexit is a disaster. Rinse and repeat
Sign In or Register to comment.