As for Labour, they appear to me to be lost. What is the point of Labour?
Narrow minded thinking is your problem there (I don't mean that offensively) you have to look at things from a different angle.
For the Labour right they have a 1980s Labour re-enactment thing going on, time of their lives. There might be a few quarrels about who is Blair (the clever play is claiming to be John Smith and not dying IMO) but mostly they have never had so much fun.
Compare the grumpy angry faces when Labour were leading in polls under Corbyn to the spring in their step now, enough to put a smile on even the most hardened leftists face (can confirm here)
The Labour left, well just some of it maybe can only talk for myself, politically I've never had so much fun in my life. Watching the amount of excuses and nuance come out for various polling results from people who previously had no time for even polls which showed small Labour leads is incredibly satisfying. I've never cared about best PM polling before but watching don't know catch up with Starmer as Johnson speeds on past it is almost as good as watching the football.
The SNP, my god the SNP. We still have some SNP posters on here I assume?
Own up, you guys either picked Keir Starmer or somehow advise him?
Whilst staying within the bounds of realism I'm not sure an SNP supporter could hope for much more from the current Labour party.
The Greens seem likely to gain from any rightward shift in Labour the same way they suffered from a leftward one.
The Tories can do whatever they like, what is not to like as a Tory? (don't give me the strong opposition line, I was here when Labour were leading in the polls, they don't want strong opposition)
The Lib Dems are the only party not really getting anything out of Labour but I'm not sure they could in any possible situation, even more pointless than Labour.
So the Labour party are providing a bit of enjoyment for everyone they can be, can you really ask for much more than that?
Fantastic to see The Jezziah back on the site. And great to see that you haven't copied Bastani and fucked off back to the Tories!
I'm not SNP. I don't want to see an endless SNP government. But my two votes - and those of my wife and my brother and my sister in law, all of us migrants to Scotland since their last election - will be for the SNP. As Sean Connery once said, "its time for a change in Scotland"...
Sigh.
As new arrivals can I ask that you give some consideration to the collapse in quality in Scottish education which has deteriorated consistently in the last 10 years; the dangerous position of our Universities who have lived off English students paying fees whilst restricting the access for Scottish students, the appalling state of Police Scotland; the disgraceful waste of public money at Bifab in Fife, at Ferguson Shipyards, at Prestwick Airport, on compensating those wrong prosecuted, I could go on all day.
Please think about the level of dishonesty and cronyism disclosed around Nicola by the Salmond fiasco, the corruption of our Civil Service and the apparent inability of our democratic systems to work in a one party state.
Educate yourself about the legislative intentions of a new SNP government such as the ridiculous Hate Speech bill, the treatment of witches in the middle ages and the never ending obsession with trans rights.
Scotland has a government that is obsessed with making points about independence, who spend their time and energy fabricating grievances and who do so little to address the underlying weakness of the Scottish economy. Viable independence, ironically, drifts ever further out of sight as we increase our dependency upon UK subsidy to an unhealthy degree. Scotland needs a change alright but the SNP is not it.
I see that you're using the arguments that you've used so successfully to turn Scots round to your way of thinking on newcomers. Fair play, treat Scottish born and new Scots the same is what I always say.
@Roger No. That’s legally incorrect. Article 7 of the TEU means that certain rights can be suspended from a member state, and then only if the EU Council unanimously find a breach, but there is no legal mechanism to expel a member. None. One of the things that has shaken my still relatively firm Europhilia is the fact that the EU, despite what was said in Hardtalk, is not doing anything remotely as severe against Poland and Hungary as suggested. Infringement proceedings you refer to began in 2017 and 2018 respectively and nothing, nothing, has happened. There was can kicking when it came to last year’s budget, no pressure applied via that route, and the Art 2 infringement proceedings are now nearly 4 years old with no sign of resolution.
My understanding is that major sanctions against Hungary and Poland have been ruled out because
- This would really create a 2 speed Europe. - A fear that this would fuel anti-European sentiment in those countries. Memories of the effects of the interventions in Italy and Greece.
No, there are far more practical reasons. Action can only be taken unanimously which means they need Hungary to vote for sanctions on Poland and for Poland to vote for sanctions against Hungary. Obviously this is a complete non-starter and not just that, other countries such as Czechia and Slovakia would also need to vote for sanctions and that seems extremely unlikely as the four nations tend to be fairly well aligned regardless of the political parties in power in each.
I believe that there are actions that could be taken without recourse to unanimous votes.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Well we certainly weren't the party for labour in 2019. Holding Canterbury and losing seats in Stoke sounds like a poshos party to me.
Being the party of middle class handwringers shedding a tear for the destitute is not a winning formula. As I keep saying, we should not be fixated on the top 10% and bottom 10%. It is the 80% in the middle who we need to appeal to.
How many non-millionaires are there in the Shadow Cabinet?
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
Looking at the reasons for the Tories big vote increase with Johnson mostly maintained rather increased Brexit is a massive factor.
One thing you could pin on Corbyn directly related to that, I don't think the Labour right would have worked as hard with others to force Labour to move to a peoples vote position if Labour had a right wing leader. They would have been more interested in electability, you can see that in how easily many of them dropped it (although some people did do it out of principle)
The argument for Corbyn being bad relies on a centrist Labour leader not only inspiring the same vote Corbyn did in 2017 to combat the Tories but actually an even better vote than that....
Look at Starmer, the any other leader would be 20 points ahead line was a joke from the very beginning. I don't see that a centrist leader would have got anywhere near achieving Labour biggest swing since 1945 in 2017 let alone bettering it and getting into government. 2019 was (in vote share) better than Brown and Miliband, and similar to current Labour polling. It was as poor as the standard centrist Labour leader, a reversion to the mean.
I can pick lots of individual faults with anyone given enough time and evidence but Corbyn was a better overall package than a couple before him and at least one after him.
You're now doing something you accused others of doing - blaming defeat on others but claiming all 'successes' for your Messiah.
Starmer is polling better against the same opponent, Johnson, than whopped your absolute boi just over a year ago.
Topping 2017 isn't going to work. Because Mrs May isn't PM anymore....
Sorry which point did you disagree with?
Happy to back up the facts on the Tory vote raising and Brexit being a big factory in that. I can blame Corbyn for not doing well enough but compared to the centrists he did far better in 2017 and probably about the same in 2019 so no it isn't his fault Labour lost, it is thanks to him they got that close in the first place. If he was even better they could have done even better.
This will be Starmer's first election, how will he do compared to Corbyn's first election? 40%? Almost a hung parliament?
Not a chance, back to the mean for Labour under a centrist leader. Which is a much worse performance than the absolute boy!
Still that is why you Tories are so desperate to back Starmer as your opposition leader.
The most centrist Labour leader in the last 2 decades was Blair who got a higher voteshare in 1997 and 2001 than Corbyn did even in 2017. Even in 2005 Blair got a higher voteshare than Corbyn got in 2019 and more seats than Corbyn won in either 2017 or 2019.
Starmer also has higher favourables than Labour does overall
Any examples from the centre that won over new voters this millennium?
Hey if we want to travel back in time to the late nineties then Blairs Labour beats Corbyns Labour happy to concede that Blair was an excellent vote winning politician in his time, he pretty much took over great polling from Smith and everyone agrees the Conservatives were in terrible state.
I think time has moved on since then, trying tactics from the late nineties isn't necessarily going to work as well
Blair in 2000 won more votes than Corbyn did in 2017 and 2019, Blair in 2005, Brown in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 won more seats than Corbyn did in 2017.
Internationally Biden won in the US in 2020 from the centre, Trudeau won in 2015 and 2019 from the centre, Macron won in 2017 from the centre, few if any examples of winning from the left recently and certainly not from the far left, apart from briefly Syriza in Greece or Lopez Obrador in Mexico
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Question: do those who aspire to be rich - or at least, comfortable enough to look after their family - get anything out of either this new party of the Left or the existing Labour Party? Or should they join the Conservative Party?
My only problem with rich people and the party would be a rich donor telling Labour what to do and them doing it, if rich people were happy enough to join the party with as much say as any other member that is fine.
Quite frankly if billionaires want to join Labour and push for higher taxes on billionaires I'd be delighted, if they started turning up on picket lanes with union workers I might just cry.
Also to clarify rich doesn't mean somebody earns more than minimum wage, I see where you are going with the at least comfortable enough to look after their family line. Where you would call the exact line of rich or not is questionable and probably arguable for everybody.
TBH I wouldn't want a poor person being able to buy the direction of the party above and beyond everyone else in the party either but I mean for obvious reasons that isn't really a worry.
Didn't she get flamed on Twitter for not appearing in the pro-vaccine video that some other BAME MPs appeared in? (And gave as good as she got in return)
@Roger No. That’s legally incorrect. Article 7 of the TEU means that certain rights can be suspended from a member state, and then only if the EU Council unanimously find a breach, but there is no legal mechanism to expel a member. None. One of the things that has shaken my still relatively firm Europhilia is the fact that the EU, despite what was said in Hardtalk, is not doing anything remotely as severe against Poland and Hungary as suggested. Infringement proceedings you refer to began in 2017 and 2018 respectively and nothing, nothing, has happened. There was can kicking when it came to last year’s budget, no pressure applied via that route, and the Art 2 infringement proceedings are now nearly 4 years old with no sign of resolution.
My understanding is that major sanctions against Hungary and Poland have been ruled out because
- This would really create a 2 speed Europe. - A fear that this would fuel anti-European sentiment in those countries. Memories of the effects of the interventions in Italy and Greece.
No, there are far more practical reasons. Action can only be taken unanimously which means they need Hungary to vote for sanctions on Poland and for Poland to vote for sanctions against Hungary. Obviously this is a complete non-starter and not just that, other countries such as Czechia and Slovakia would also need to vote for sanctions and that seems extremely unlikely as the four nations tend to be fairly well aligned regardless of the political parties in power in each.
I believe that there are actions that could be taken without recourse to unanimous votes.
A few small thing have been done.
Those actions amount to literally nothing. The only real sanction is suspension of single market membership and that, rightly, needs a unanimous decision of the other 26. I'd be surprised if the commission could get 10 votes in favour of suspending Hungary or Poland.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Well we certainly weren't the party for labour in 2019. Holding Canterbury and losing seats in Stoke sounds like a poshos party to me.
Being the party of middle class handwringers shedding a tear for the destitute is not a winning formula. As I keep saying, we should not be fixated on the top 10% and bottom 10%. It is the 80% in the middle who we need to appeal to.
How many non-millionaires are there in the Shadow Cabinet?
Quite a few, the only millionaires in the Shadow Cabinet I can think of are Starmer himself and Thomas Symonds who were both barristers and Miliband and Nandy via inheritance
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
@Roger No. That’s legally incorrect. Article 7 of the TEU means that certain rights can be suspended from a member state, and then only if the EU Council unanimously find a breach, but there is no legal mechanism to expel a member. None. One of the things that has shaken my still relatively firm Europhilia is the fact that the EU, despite what was said in Hardtalk, is not doing anything remotely as severe against Poland and Hungary as suggested. Infringement proceedings you refer to began in 2017 and 2018 respectively and nothing, nothing, has happened. There was can kicking when it came to last year’s budget, no pressure applied via that route, and the Art 2 infringement proceedings are now nearly 4 years old with no sign of resolution.
My understanding is that major sanctions against Hungary and Poland have been ruled out because
- This would really create a 2 speed Europe. - A fear that this would fuel anti-European sentiment in those countries. Memories of the effects of the interventions in Italy and Greece.
It’s more fundamental than that. It is unlikely that the other 2 Visigrad countries, or some others in Eastern Europe, would vote to institute Art 7 and unanimity is required. So for the reasons you give and that reason it will never happen. The EU had a golden opportunity to apply pressure via other means, through the budget, this last year, and failed to do so. I am a “Diehard Remainer” ((c) HYUFD) but this episode has shaken that faith.
Why does it shake your faith? I voted Remain, but pragmatically, by the way.
The European system decided to prioritise "building Europe" over human rights/democracy/legal concerns. This has long been their track record.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
The Conservatives are no longer the party of the rich.
In 2019 for example the Tories got 40% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year compared to 43% overall.
Even Corbyn Labour got 31% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year so did almost as well with the rich as they did overall where they got 32%.
The party of the rich is now the LDs, the LDs got 20% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year in 2019 compared to just 11% overall
Taking into account asset ownership and the age profile of home owners / renters etc. and then the age profile of the Labour and Conservative vote then there is a very real wealth difference beyond just their wages.
To give a personal example had a long retired grandfather who bought a house in a place where house prices rocketed, his final salary pension was probably decent but his assets made him rich.
My cousin from the same area works 2 jobs to afford rent a shared property with a friend in a dodgy area (of the same expensive place to live) on a purely wage basis you could argue she is richer than him, but the reality is completely the opposite.
She switched to voting Labour although he switched to UKIP rather than the Conservatives
Didn't she get flamed on Twitter for not appearing in the pro-vaccine video that some other BAME MPs appeared in? (And gave as good as she got in return)
I think you may be confusing her with Kemi Badenoch..
My first fish-box arrived direct yesterday, which is why I am having Cornish scallops for lunch with tuna, in a suitable sauce.
I wonder how much potential there is for improving the UK consumption of fish?
One problem most of the "direct" sellers have is that too many of them are artisan fishmongers charging prices are in the Waitrose range - £25 per kg of fillet, £17 or so per kg of whole fish. Plus carriage.
Those prices will need to adjust to share the retail margin with the customer.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
There has been a huge failure to combat fake news against vaccines in the last year or so. We needed a massive public information campaign with famous BAME people talking about how it's safe to do this. Blanket advertising across social media and television.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
The very first UK Lotto - when it was 6 numbers from 1 to 49 - 1 got 4 of the six numbers. The other two numbers were each adjacent to the winning number. I still feel the need to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
I see no reason why it shouldn't be made a legal requirement for health care sector, same as we found you had to do your radicalisation identication module in order to jab somebody.....
We expect health care professionals to be properly trained with the relevant qualifications, we should also expect that they aren't spreading a deadly virus to the most vulnerable in society.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
To ask the obvious dumb question: these geographically-based genetic differences only arise because mutations occur and spread through a population, and we also know that within a relatively short period (hundreds of years) most people are interrelated given the number of ancestors they have (this effect magnified in hugely smaller populations).
So what supports the conclusion that this genetic change represents extermination and replacement by migration, rather than mutation and spread by reproduction?
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
Come back to me when you understand the word "close".
You said he didn't come close. He did.
Who cares about "close"? It doesn't matter.
If you lose a football game 3-2 or you lose a game 7-0 it doesn't matter (apart from goal difference)
But if you want to win in future surely acting more like you did in the 3-2 is more likely to bring success than acting like you did in the 7-0.
Or can you not see the difference and you would insist that playing the same way that lost you 7-0 is preferable to trying some of the things that got you closer in the 3-2?
I mean look if your point is you want Labour to lose 7-0, you and me both, they should crack on and get hammered.
My point is if they want to win they have to look at some of the stuff from the 3-2 because that clearly worked better for them than the approach in the 7-0
Can you really not understand this simple point?
I know you want to pretend not to understand for the sake of your politicfal biases but I have broken it down so simply now that you surely can't even pretend to miss it?
Also before we get back to that strawman nobody (relevant) is saying Corbyn back as leader.
@Roger No. That’s legally incorrect. Article 7 of the TEU means that certain rights can be suspended from a member state, and then only if the EU Council unanimously find a breach, but there is no legal mechanism to expel a member. None. One of the things that has shaken my still relatively firm Europhilia is the fact that the EU, despite what was said in Hardtalk, is not doing anything remotely as severe against Poland and Hungary as suggested. Infringement proceedings you refer to began in 2017 and 2018 respectively and nothing, nothing, has happened. There was can kicking when it came to last year’s budget, no pressure applied via that route, and the Art 2 infringement proceedings are now nearly 4 years old with no sign of resolution.
My understanding is that major sanctions against Hungary and Poland have been ruled out because
- This would really create a 2 speed Europe. - A fear that this would fuel anti-European sentiment in those countries. Memories of the effects of the interventions in Italy and Greece.
It’s more fundamental than that. It is unlikely that the other 2 Visigrad countries, or some others in Eastern Europe, would vote to institute Art 7 and unanimity is required. So for the reasons you give and that reason it will never happen. The EU had a golden opportunity to apply pressure via other means, through the budget, this last year, and failed to do so. I am a “Diehard Remainer” ((c) HYUFD) but this episode has shaken that faith.
Why does it shake your faith? I voted Remain, but pragmatically, by the way.
The European system decided to prioritise "building Europe" over human rights/democracy/legal concerns. This has long been their track record.
Prior to law school I was quite Eurosceptic, but also concerned that the UK constitution could create an elected dictatorship as, theoretically, there were no practical checks on the power of the party controlling the Commons. One of the things that won me round to Europhilia was studying EU law and being taken by @Roger ’s idea that the EU provided such a check - albeit an imperfect one The example of Poland and, especially, Hungary shows that the check I imagined was there was an ephemera. Orban is a dictator and the EU have done, and in reality while Poland is still a member can do, nothing whatsoever about him.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Well we certainly weren't the party for labour in 2019. Holding Canterbury and losing seats in Stoke sounds like a poshos party to me.
Being the party of middle class handwringers shedding a tear for the destitute is not a winning formula. As I keep saying, we should not be fixated on the top 10% and bottom 10%. It is the 80% in the middle who we need to appeal to.
How many non-millionaires are there in the Shadow Cabinet?
Quite a few, the only millionaires in the Shadow Cabinet I can think of are Starmer himself and Thomas Symonds who were both barristers and Miliband and Nandy via inheritance
I'd guestimate (without doing a proper estimate) the current Shad Cab as closer to the opposite proportion.
Also, great news that AZ are running a trial for kids. That would further reduce the number of potential host bodies for the virus and from age 6 and up means all primary and secondary school pupils could be jabbed by the time the next academic year starts which would basically end the pandemic once and for all.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Well we certainly weren't the party for labour in 2019. Holding Canterbury and losing seats in Stoke sounds like a poshos party to me.
Being the party of middle class handwringers shedding a tear for the destitute is not a winning formula. As I keep saying, we should not be fixated on the top 10% and bottom 10%. It is the 80% in the middle who we need to appeal to.
TBH see my anecdotal story to HYUFD. The middle class 'hand-wringers' we were getting were double jobbed renters just about keeping their head above water, the salt of the earth real working people no nonsense etc. we were losing was my quite wealthy grandfather...
I got the feeling in 2017 we did go for those people to an extent, quite frankly if you were older and wealthier though the country was going pretty good, maybe needed a brexit but the changes for the the non retired sounded a bit much. I don't think our problem in 2017 was 'hand-wringing' our problems in 2019 were many!
Didn't she get flamed on Twitter for not appearing in the pro-vaccine video that some other BAME MPs appeared in? (And gave as good as she got in return)
I think you may be confusing her with Kemi Badenoch..
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
Come back to me when you understand the word "close".
You said he didn't come close. He did.
Who cares about "close"? It doesn't matter.
If you lose a football game 3-2 or you lose a game 7-0 it doesn't matter (apart from goal difference)
But if you want to win in future surely acting more like you did in the 3-2 is more likely to bring success than acting like you did in the 7-0.
Or can you not see the difference and you would insist that playing the same way that lost you 7-0 is preferable to trying some of the things that got you closer in the 3-2?
I mean look if your point is you want Labour to lose 7-0, you and me both, they should crack on and get hammered.
My point is if they want to win they have to look at some of the stuff from the 3-2 because that clearly worked better for them than the approach in the 7-0
Can you really not understand this simple point?
I know you want to pretend not to understand for the sake of your politicfal biases but I have broken it down so simply now that you surely can't even pretend to miss it?
Also before we get back to that strawman nobody (relevant) is saying Corbyn back as leader.
Oh I absolutely understand your point. And it's wrong. To use your metaphor you change your tactics dependent on your opponent, and the own state of your team taking into consideration a whole raft of different variables. The tactics for a 3-2 result may have worked well on that day, in those conditions against that opposing team but that doesn't mean those same tactics will produce a similarly close result on another day - in different circumstances, against a different team or even the same team (spolier: they may have changed their tactics too). You may get hammered by more than 7-0. Which is what happened in 2019.
Otherwise why do teams bother with managers. Once they've won once they've obviously got a winning formula that'll always win. No need for a manager.
All you are doing is saying "well that worked so if we tweak it a little it'll work again but better". Which is nonsense as events move on and things change. By all means keeping playing those same tactics though.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
They become legally responsible for any deaths resulting from their getting covid.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
Come back to me when you understand the word "close".
You said he didn't come close. He did.
Who cares about "close"? It doesn't matter.
Well even though you don't care whether it was close - and think it doesn't matter whether it was close - you nevertheless claimed it was "not even close".
I was merely correcting that. If you'd just said "he lost" - no issue. He did.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
Looking at the reasons for the Tories big vote increase with Johnson mostly maintained rather increased Brexit is a massive factor.
One thing you could pin on Corbyn directly related to that, I don't think the Labour right would have worked as hard with others to force Labour to move to a peoples vote position if Labour had a right wing leader. They would have been more interested in electability, you can see that in how easily many of them dropped it (although some people did do it out of principle)
The argument for Corbyn being bad relies on a centrist Labour leader not only inspiring the same vote Corbyn did in 2017 to combat the Tories but actually an even better vote than that....
Look at Starmer, the any other leader would be 20 points ahead line was a joke from the very beginning. I don't see that a centrist leader would have got anywhere near achieving Labour biggest swing since 1945 in 2017 let alone bettering it and getting into government. 2019 was (in vote share) better than Brown and Miliband, and similar to current Labour polling. It was as poor as the standard centrist Labour leader, a reversion to the mean.
I can pick lots of individual faults with anyone given enough time and evidence but Corbyn was a better overall package than a couple before him and at least one after him.
You're now doing something you accused others of doing - blaming defeat on others but claiming all 'successes' for your Messiah.
Starmer is polling better against the same opponent, Johnson, than whopped your absolute boi just over a year ago.
Topping 2017 isn't going to work. Because Mrs May isn't PM anymore....
Sorry which point did you disagree with?
Happy to back up the facts on the Tory vote raising and Brexit being a big factory in that. I can blame Corbyn for not doing well enough but compared to the centrists he did far better in 2017 and probably about the same in 2019 so no it isn't his fault Labour lost, it is thanks to him they got that close in the first place. If he was even better they could have done even better.
This will be Starmer's first election, how will he do compared to Corbyn's first election? 40%? Almost a hung parliament?
Not a chance, back to the mean for Labour under a centrist leader. Which is a much worse performance than the absolute boy!
Still that is why you Tories are so desperate to back Starmer as your opposition leader.
The most centrist Labour leader in the last 2 decades was Blair who got a higher voteshare in 1997 and 2001 than Corbyn did even in 2017. Even in 2005 Blair got a higher voteshare than Corbyn got in 2019 and more seats than Corbyn won in either 2017 or 2019.
Starmer also has higher favourables than Labour does overall
Any examples from the centre that won over new voters this millennium?
Hey if we want to travel back in time to the late nineties then Blairs Labour beats Corbyns Labour happy to concede that Blair was an excellent vote winning politician in his time, he pretty much took over great polling from Smith and everyone agrees the Conservatives were in terrible state.
I think time has moved on since then, trying tactics from the late nineties isn't necessarily going to work as well
Blair in 2000 won more votes than Corbyn did in 2017 and 2019, Blair in 2005, Brown in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 won more seats than Corbyn did in 2017.
Internationally Biden won in the US in 2020 from the centre, Trudeau won in 2015 and 2019 from the centre, Macron won in 2017 from the centre, few if any examples of winning from the left recently and certainly not from the far left, apart from briefly Syriza in Greece or Lopez Obrador in Mexico
I can't decide if you intentionally missed out the word new in my post (new voters this millennium) to make a point back or it was a genuine mistake.
In the UK this millennium Labour have only won over significant new voters under a left wing leader whilst mostly losing them (Ed gained a small amount) under non left leaders
Internationally you can make lots of arguments depending what exotic locations you want to head to...
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
The Conservatives are no longer the party of the rich.
In 2019 for example the Tories got 40% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year compared to 43% overall.
Even Corbyn Labour got 31% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year so did almost as well with the rich as they did overall where they got 32%.
The party of the rich is now the LDs, the LDs got 20% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year in 2019 compared to just 11% overall
Taking into account asset ownership and the age profile of home owners / renters etc. and then the age profile of the Labour and Conservative vote then there is a very real wealth difference beyond just their wages.
To give a personal example had a long retired grandfather who bought a house in a place where house prices rocketed, his final salary pension was probably decent but his assets made him rich.
My cousin from the same area works 2 jobs to afford rent a shared property with a friend in a dodgy area (of the same expensive place to live) on a purely wage basis you could argue she is richer than him, but the reality is completely the opposite.
She switched to voting Labour although he switched to UKIP rather than the Conservatives
That is partly true, home owners were the strongest Tory voters in 2019 while renters still voted Labour.
However it is striking that median individual earnings in new seats the Tories gained in 2019 at £22,600 are lower than median earnings in seats Labour held in 2019 at £23,800.
Though seats the Tories held in 2019 still have the highest average incomes at £25,100
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
There has been a huge failure to combat fake news against vaccines in the last year or so. We needed a massive public information campaign with famous BAME people talking about how it's safe to do this. Blanket advertising across social media and television.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
Come back to me when you understand the word "close".
You said he didn't come close. He did.
Who cares about "close"? It doesn't matter.
If you lose a football game 3-2 or you lose a game 7-0 it doesn't matter (apart from goal difference)
But if you want to win in future surely acting more like you did in the 3-2 is more likely to bring success than acting like you did in the 7-0.
Or can you not see the difference and you would insist that playing the same way that lost you 7-0 is preferable to trying some of the things that got you closer in the 3-2?
I mean look if your point is you want Labour to lose 7-0, you and me both, they should crack on and get hammered.
My point is if they want to win they have to look at some of the stuff from the 3-2 because that clearly worked better for them than the approach in the 7-0
Can you really not understand this simple point?
I know you want to pretend not to understand for the sake of your politicfal biases but I have broken it down so simply now that you surely can't even pretend to miss it?
Also before we get back to that strawman nobody (relevant) is saying Corbyn back as leader.
Except 2017 wasn't 3-2. It wasn't actually that close even though May and Hammond were both atrocious.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
Come back to me when you understand the word "close".
You said he didn't come close. He did.
Who cares about "close"? It doesn't matter.
If you lose a football game 3-2 or you lose a game 7-0 it doesn't matter (apart from goal difference)
But if you want to win in future surely acting more like you did in the 3-2 is more likely to bring success than acting like you did in the 7-0.
Or can you not see the difference and you would insist that playing the same way that lost you 7-0 is preferable to trying some of the things that got you closer in the 3-2?
I mean look if your point is you want Labour to lose 7-0, you and me both, they should crack on and get hammered.
My point is if they want to win they have to look at some of the stuff from the 3-2 because that clearly worked better for them than the approach in the 7-0
Can you really not understand this simple point?
I know you want to pretend not to understand for the sake of your politicfal biases but I have broken it down so simply now that you surely can't even pretend to miss it?
Also before we get back to that strawman nobody (relevant) is saying Corbyn back as leader.
What about policies that build bridges between different parts of a coalition?
Thesis - since public services became prominent in the UK (Victorian period), there have been 3 issues - minimising capacity (in the name of efficiency), inflexibility and producer interest capture - "There is one option, that is what we do and we do it when *we* want"
Proposal - deliberate over capacity in service provision. This is to provide better service in good times and surge space in emergencies. It would also allow for competition *inside* the nationally owned system
Example 1 - NHS. Deliberate funding of excess capacity, with extra staffing included. This would take the form of more hospitals, rather than just increasing the size of existing one. The idea is that for epidemics - more capacity. In normal times - faster service, and the ability to chose your hospital.
Example 2 - Education. In order to decrease class sizes, build more schools and employ more teachers. The idea is to decrease crowding (epidemics). Also, to have surge capacity in schools to enable mobility within the UK, and create school choice.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
But. He. Didn't.
I came close to winning the Euromillions last night. But I didn't. Shall on go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?
Come back to me when you understand the word "close".
You said he didn't come close. He did.
Who cares about "close"? It doesn't matter.
If you lose a football game 3-2 or you lose a game 7-0 it doesn't matter (apart from goal difference)
But if you want to win in future surely acting more like you did in the 3-2 is more likely to bring success than acting like you did in the 7-0.
Or can you not see the difference and you would insist that playing the same way that lost you 7-0 is preferable to trying some of the things that got you closer in the 3-2?
I mean look if your point is you want Labour to lose 7-0, you and me both, they should crack on and get hammered.
My point is if they want to win they have to look at some of the stuff from the 3-2 because that clearly worked better for them than the approach in the 7-0
Can you really not understand this simple point?
I know you want to pretend not to understand for the sake of your politicfal biases but I have broken it down so simply now that you surely can't even pretend to miss it?
Also before we get back to that strawman nobody (relevant) is saying Corbyn back as leader.
Oh I absolutely understand your point. And it's wrong. To use your metaphor you change your tactics dependent on your opponent, and the own state of your team taking into consideration a whole raft of different variables. The tactics for a 3-2 result may have worked well on that day, in those conditions against that opposing team but that doesn't mean those same tactics will produce a similarly close result on another day - in different circumstances, against a different team or even the same team (spolier: they may have changed their tactics too). You may get hammered by more than 7-0. Which is what happened in 2019.
Otherwise why do teams bother with managers. Once they've won once they've obviously got a winning formula that'll always win. No need for a manager.
All you are doing is saying "well that worked so if we tweak it a little it'll work again but better". Which is nonsense as events move on and things change. By all means keeping playing those same tactics though.
TBH times change and you have to move with them is much more an argument in the Labour lefts favour, seen as almost the entire Labour right argument can be summed up with Blair.
So I completely agree with you, times change, what worked a few years ago might work now with some modification.. what worked 20 odd years ago is mostly long dead and buried.
I am glad you can see the logic in abandoning long dead tactics in favour of ones that have produced better results in the more recent past with modifications to make them relevant for the modern day, whether we are talking politics or football it is true.
So 2017 is the closest Labour have come to winning a game without going back to some long dead age, so you need to take some of the good parts from there and modify it to fit 202X rather than reaching back decades to some long dead footballing age.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
Stick it in the next health bill, all healthcare workers will need to be immunised to COVID by a certain date and care homes can make it part of their requirements for new joiners too. I don't see it as an insurmountable issue.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
This frog will be boiled slowly, I think.
So a steady drip of changes in terms and conditions, un-spoken "need a vaccination for this job"* and some anguished articles in the Guardian about institutional racism.
*Badly enforced and causing damage to all parties due to it not being formalised.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
Since when were dodgy early hours bookies odds determining anything?
In the early hours last November we saw Trump go odds on. Biden won comprehensively. Trump lost comprehensively. Not as comprehensively as Corbyn lost 2017 but not far off.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
This frog will be boiled slowly, I think.
So a steady drip of changes in terms and conditions, un-spoken "need a vaccination for this job"* and some anguished articles in the Guardian about institutional racism.
*Badly enforced and causing damage to all parties due to it not being formalised.
Doesn't the government just add it to the next health bill and set a date for staff to be immunised. That way it passes the legal liability to care home operators who can sack the last few holdouts.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
Stick it in the next health bill, all healthcare workers will need to be immunised to COVID by a certain date and care homes can make it part of their requirements for new joiners too. I don't see it as an insurmountable issue.
Many care homes already have made it a requirement for new joiners but they are not legally permitted as far as I know to do so for existing staff.
Hence it needs to be Parliament that grasps the issue.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
Question: do those who aspire to be rich - or at least, comfortable enough to look after their family - get anything out of either this new party of the Left or the existing Labour Party? Or should they join the Conservative Party?
Serious answer: living in a society where inequalities are no longer disturbingly large. Partly from direct self-interest - wealth can be lost through bad luck, bad judgment or illness, so it's good to have a safety net - partly from feeling secure - a country with extreme inequality like South Africa tends to have high crime levels unless it's extremely authoritarian - and partly from patriotism/solidarity, whatever you want to call it, living in a country where you feel that everyone has a fair chance and nobody is desperately poor. Also, more subtly, a society with a good safety net encourages enterprise (trying a new job, for instance), because the price of failure is not penury. That's IMO why the high-tax model in scandinavia works without the rich fleeing to other countries.
These are all reasons why Labour does as well in high-income brackets as it does in others. The difference in party allegiance nowadays is overwhelmingly age, not income. Which is as disturbing for traditional Marxists as it is for traditional Conservatives, but we all have to get used to it.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
Since when were dodgy early hours bookies odds determining anything?
In the early hours last November we saw Trump go odds on. Biden won comprehensively. Trump lost comprehensively. Not as comprehensively as Corbyn lost 2017 but not far off.
The bookies were wrong. Or the punters were.
Biden won by 51% to Trump's 47% last year, a 4% gap, the Tories won by 43% to 32% for Corbyn Labour in 2019, an 11% gap, so the 2020 result in the US was closer to the 2% gap in the 2017 UK general election result than the 11% gap in the 2019 UK general election result
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
No they shouldn't, they should be allocated in relation to the percentage of A* grade pupils from Eton relative to A* grade pupils in sixth forms across the country
The thing to which Corbyn came 'close' in 2017 was becoming Prime Minister ... of an SNP Government. He would have been utterly dependent on their votes not just for passing legislation but for any kind of majority, so they would have had the final say on every aspect of UK governance, and while the SNP may be bonkers, they're not socialists, and would probably have dedicated themselves to siphoning off more resources to Scotland and engineering independence. Even if Corbyn had won another 64 (!) seats in order to give himself a Labour majority of 2, could he have counted on all his backbenchers to actually pass what he wanted? I kind of doubt it.
Morning. I see BoZo's biggest fan is up with the lark.
Personally, I cannot stand the slovenly buffoon with a penchant for fancy dress photo opportunities. Its like watching the Generation Game at times, and sometimes worse.
Its shouldn't really be a hugely positive or negative thing for Boris to engage in Mr Ben like activities like this. People on the whole though probably think it fits Boris and therefore its a slight positive for him. The committed lefties dont like it probably because it is a bit effective
I think Johnsons only real skill is such amusing photo stunts. He is certainly a campaigning genius, it's the complete absence of integrity and competence that makes him so unsuitable a PM.
To keep the Plebeian support, they must be given bread and circuses, and he delivers the circuses. I am not convinced that Starmer can deliver either.
Maybe an absence of integrity and competence is an asset in politics.
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
The important lessons from so much of COVID is that there are key supplies that the cost saving isn't worth totally eliminating home grown production. We have seen it with PPE, base chemicals, vaccines.
Relying on China for your plastic tat is one thing, solely relying on them for the crucial chemicals that make up key drugs is another.
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
Another example of the massive advantage conferred by those countries who worked as partners with, rather than customers of, the vaccine manufacturers, and invested early in production facilities.
It looks likely that: 1. Labour will do relatively poorly in the May elections. 2. The far left members and MPs of the party who seem to spend their every waking hour plotting to undermine Starmer will rejoice in that outcome.
At headline level, I think Labour will enjoy big gains, given that we're now eleven years into a Conservative government, and the county results in 2017 showed a huge Conservative lead. But, in terms of national equivalent vote share, Labour may not be doing so well.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
Ydoethur, in what way has Brexit been a failure? It's difficult not to associate our vaccine success, for example, with our departure from the EU, who are stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire.
One swallow and all that. Yes GB's vaccination programme seems to have been a success, and as I posted yesterday I am no fan of Frau Dr van den Leyen, who doesn't, in spite (?because of) her good academic qualifications to be the nimblest thinker. There could be any number of reasons for Europes comparative failure, but being in the middle of a change of government probably didn't help.
So far, though, I have heard of no exporting or employment successes, only failures, or difficulties.
I would summarise it as they worked on improving the efficiency of the process, rather than realising they needed a new process with a different purpose.
Not helped by the nature of the EU being procedural - as even emdebbed Euronauts will say. That is also why they say that Boris' / Gove's current attempted swashbuckling style of politics will not shift much.
The EU is great at managing a trading bloc but is terrible at being a quasi-federal government. Which is why a sensible Brexit would have involved the Single Market in one way or another. The EU describes itself as sui generis but with a flag, anthem and ambassadors accredited as if it were sovereign (and Lisbon made some aspects of its sovereignty explicit) it’s hard to criticise those that point out that if it walks like a duck etc. I identify as European but would rather be in a Europe which was explicit one thing or another. You can’t be half a country.
It has other virtues than being a trading block and more important ones in my opinion. The French EU Minister was on Hard Talk yesterday and was asked as an openly gay Minister what were the EU going to do about Poland and Hungary where certain areas still had discriminatory laws? 'We are prosecuting them at the moment and if they fail to comply with these basic rules of membership they will be fined or ultimately they can have their membership withdrawn'
For me that's what this organisation is about. Taking 27 disparate nations and as a condition of membership there are certain civilised norms that have to be complied with. We couldn't for example allow Saudi Arabia to join unless they had a serious change of policy and those who worry about the instincts of Priti Patel could have slept more easily at night.
In practice, I doubt if there is anything they can do.
The thing to which Corbyn came 'close' in 2017 was becoming Prime Minister ... of an SNP Government. He would have been utterly dependent on their votes not just for passing legislation but for any kind of majority, so they would have had the final say on every aspect of UK governance, and while the SNP may be bonkers, they're not socialists, and would probably have dedicated themselves to siphoning off more resources to Scotland and engineering independence. Even if Corbyn had won another 64 (!) seats in order to give himself a Labour majority of 2, could he have counted on all his backbenchers to actually pass what he wanted? I kind of doubt it.
Corbyn was only a tiny handful of votes away from achieving this situation IIRC.
@Roger No. That’s legally incorrect. Article 7 of the TEU means that certain rights can be suspended from a member state, and then only if the EU Council unanimously find a breach, but there is no legal mechanism to expel a member. None. One of the things that has shaken my still relatively firm Europhilia is the fact that the EU, despite what was said in Hardtalk, is not doing anything remotely as severe against Poland and Hungary as suggested. Infringement proceedings you refer to began in 2017 and 2018 respectively and nothing, nothing, has happened. There was can kicking when it came to last year’s budget, no pressure applied via that route, and the Art 2 infringement proceedings are now nearly 4 years old with no sign of resolution.
My understanding is that major sanctions against Hungary and Poland have been ruled out because
- This would really create a 2 speed Europe. - A fear that this would fuel anti-European sentiment in those countries. Memories of the effects of the interventions in Italy and Greece.
No, there are far more practical reasons. Action can only be taken unanimously which means they need Hungary to vote for sanctions on Poland and for Poland to vote for sanctions against Hungary. Obviously this is a complete non-starter and not just that, other countries such as Czechia and Slovakia would also need to vote for sanctions and that seems extremely unlikely as the four nations tend to be fairly well aligned regardless of the political parties in power in each.
I believe that there are actions that could be taken without recourse to unanimous votes.
A few small thing have been done.
Those actions amount to literally nothing. The only real sanction is suspension of single market membership and that, rightly, needs a unanimous decision of the other 26. I'd be surprised if the commission could get 10 votes in favour of suspending Hungary or Poland.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, France decided to reinstate the guillotine, then I expect the rest of the EU would just have to live with it.
I've just received a great e-mail from Sean Gabb, with a series of lectures he gave on the downfall of the Roman Republic. One of the points he makes, which is a good one, is that once someone with sufficient power decides they will not be bound by a particular political convention, that political convention vanishes.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Thank you for repeating the same assertions. Do you have evidence, please? Because, again, the evidence I saw said something very different. I’m willing to be corrected if you can prove your statements. (Incidentally, again, the polling I saw suggested that individual policies were popular but nobody thought they were properly costed.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the policies were popular as shown here - I don't remember a specific question on being properly costed, but the public are always sceptical (and they're usually right) about parties claiming that, and will often vote for a party on the basis that if they turn out to be able to afford half of it that's not bad. Corbyn was competitive with May as the BBC link shows, though many will think that a low bar - my recollection is that he attracted both more enthusiasm and more hostility than May but it evened out in 2017. What people think/thought of Corbyn is a bit irrelevant now, of course - we're discussing the policies.
There was also a survey (which I can't find) suggesting that Labour's vote increased more among people who thought Labour might win than people who didn't, which is a pretty normal pattern but contradicts the theory that people voted Labour because they were sure they'd lose. People don't in general think like that, in my experience.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
What evidence do you have for that? All the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite - that in 2017 Remainers voted a Labour to protest at Tory rhetoric in spite of Corbyn’s ‘fully costed’ policies (such as £300 million for 10,000 extra police) and then in 2019 they voted Tory because of his woeful leadership and unrealistic policies.
I've showed you the reasons people voted for Labour in 2017 previously, you purposefully forget because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Maybe they all lied and secretly told you the real reason they were voting Labour?
I'll take your word for it.
I do not recall you ever providing any evidence of this before. That is not because I am a liar, or because it doesn’t suit my agenda, it is simply that I cannot recall it. You may have done, or may not, but amazingly I don’t remember every word you post.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
Another example of the massive advantage conferred by those countries who worked as partners with, rather than customers of, the vaccine manufacturers, and invested early in production facilities.
The thing to which Corbyn came 'close' in 2017 was becoming Prime Minister ... of an SNP Government. He would have been utterly dependent on their votes not just for passing legislation but for any kind of majority, so they would have had the final say on every aspect of UK governance, and while the SNP may be bonkers, they're not socialists, and would probably have dedicated themselves to siphoning off more resources to Scotland and engineering independence. Even if Corbyn had won another 64 (!) seats in order to give himself a Labour majority of 2, could he have counted on all his backbenchers to actually pass what he wanted? I kind of doubt it.
Corbyn was only a tiny handful of votes away from achieving this situation IIRC.
He needed to take 6 more Tory seats to deprive CON + DUP of even a working majority, assuming that every single other MP would have supported him becoming Prime Minister. So in practice he needed rather more than 6!
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
The Conservatives are no longer the party of the rich.
In 2019 for example the Tories got 40% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year compared to 43% overall.
Even Corbyn Labour got 31% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year so did almost as well with the rich as they did overall where they got 32%.
The party of the rich is now the LDs, the LDs got 20% amongst voters earning over £70,000 a year in 2019 compared to just 11% overall
Taking into account asset ownership and the age profile of home owners / renters etc. and then the age profile of the Labour and Conservative vote then there is a very real wealth difference beyond just their wages.
To give a personal example had a long retired grandfather who bought a house in a place where house prices rocketed, his final salary pension was probably decent but his assets made him rich.
My cousin from the same area works 2 jobs to afford rent a shared property with a friend in a dodgy area (of the same expensive place to live) on a purely wage basis you could argue she is richer than him, but the reality is completely the opposite.
She switched to voting Labour although he switched to UKIP rather than the Conservatives
That is partly true, home owners were the strongest Tory voters in 2019 while renters still voted Labour.
However it is striking that median individual earnings in new seats the Tories gained in 2019 at £22,600 are lower than median earnings in seats Labour held in 2019 at £23,800.
Though seats the Tories held in 2019 still have the highest average incomes at £25,100
You are right that it has become closer in recent times than it is now.
Also in reference to my original point that I should have expanded on more or worded better I just didn't want Labour to be run on the say of big individual rich donors, if a donor and the party happen to agree on something great, or if a rich person just wants to give the party lots of money because they believe in it.
It is partially a principle thing, it'd be nice and I wouldn't be too angry but it would be equally unacceptable in Labour from a left wing direction, if the Labour movement wanted to support something that was okay electorally but a big donor alone stopped it for personal reasons that would be bad even if I agreed with whatever left wing thing it is.
Thank you for repeating the same assertions. Do you have evidence, please? Because, again, the evidence I saw said something very different. I’m willing to be corrected if you can prove your statements. (Incidentally, again, the polling I saw suggested that individual policies were popular but nobody thought they were properly costed.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the policies were popular as shown here - I don't remember a specific question on being properly costed, but the public are always sceptical (and they're usually right) about parties claiming that, and will often vote for a party on the basis that if they turn out to be able to afford half of it that's not bad. Corbyn was competitive with May as the BBC link shows, though many will think that a low bar - my recollection is that he attracted both more enthusiasm and more hostility than May but it evened out in 2017. What people think/thought of Corbyn is a bit irrelevant now, of course - we're discussing the policies.
There was also a survey (which I can't find) suggesting that Labour's vote increased more among people who thought Labour might win than people who didn't, which is a pretty normal pattern but contradicts the theory that people voted Labour because they were sure they'd lose. People don't in general think like that, in my experience.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
What evidence do you have for that? All the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite - that in 2017 Remainers voted a Labour to protest at Tory rhetoric in spite of Corbyn’s ‘fully costed’ policies (such as £300 million for 10,000 extra police) and then in 2019 they voted Tory because of his woeful leadership and unrealistic policies.
I've showed you the reasons people voted for Labour in 2017 previously, you purposefully forget because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Maybe they all lied and secretly told you the real reason they were voting Labour?
I'll take your word for it.
I do not recall you ever providing any evidence of this before. That is not because I am a liar, or because it doesn’t suit my agenda, it is simply that I cannot recall it. You may have done, or may not, but amazingly I don’t remember every word you post.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
I don't think the link says what Jezziah thinks it says.
According to that link only 41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Labour policies or due to supporting Corbyn. So 59% of Labour voters had other reasons.
I see Duncan Bannatyne has been a knob on twitter, boasting about traveling to Florida and how far less restrictions...he is able to do this, because he technically lives in Portugal and has spent the winter bouncing around Portugal, Carribean and now Florida, where he has homes.
If you are in such a fortunate position, why wouldn't you just keep quiet about it?
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
The next problem will be enforcement. I suspect there is a reason that forged vaccination stickers/cards have already turned up.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
I see Duncan Bannatyne has been a knob on twitter, boasting about traveling to Florida and how far less restrictions...he is able to do this, because he technically lives in Portugal and has spent the winter bouncing around Portugal, Carribean and now Florida, where he has homes.
If you are in such a fortunate position, why wouldn't you just keep quiet about it?
That would take away about 2/3 of the pleasure these type of people get from their wealth.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
That’s an awesome number! Close to half a mil, if Scotland keep depleting their stocks?
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
To ask the obvious dumb question: these geographically-based genetic differences only arise because mutations occur and spread through a population, and we also know that within a relatively short period (hundreds of years) most people are interrelated given the number of ancestors they have (this effect magnified in hugely smaller populations).
So what supports the conclusion that this genetic change represents extermination and replacement by migration, rather than mutation and spread by reproduction?
The Y Chromosome haplogroup changes at a rate of around 2 mutations per generation. It is, in DNA terms, very stable, which is why it is used for studying human evolution. It is the basic tool for studying all evolutionary changes in humans and for identifying when the species originated (around 280K years ago) and bottlenecks such as that caused by catastrophic collapses in population. It simply isn't possible for the changes seen at the end of the Neolithic to have been caused by interbreeding - it would be unique in all human history and would mean the rate of mutation accelerating at an unheard of speed and then stopping again.
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
Another example of the massive advantage conferred by those countries who worked as partners with, rather than customers of, the vaccine manufacturers, and invested early in production facilities.
Good job Canada is on a downward slope then -
That’s looking better.
A friend of mine is moving to Canada from the sandpit next month (he was an A380 pilot), and the logistics of doing so are incredibly difficult under the current restrictions there, he’s hoping things are somewhat easier by the time he travels.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
That’s an awesome number! Close to half a mil, if Scotland keep depleting their stocks?
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
The next problem will be enforcement. I suspect there is a reason that forged vaccination stickers/cards have already turned up.
Easier in the UK where vaccinations can be checked against NHS numbers etc. Less easy for those recruited from overseas.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
Interesting. I might read his book again to see where, other than looking for evidence for a preferred conclusion, his analysis might be flawed
I don't think it is necessarily fair to say his analysis was flawed. It was based on the evidence available in the early 2000s. Obviously if he was still persisting in claiming everything he said was true one might question whether he is rather stuck in the mud. But the new evidence only emerged in 2018 so I don't think he can be accused of preferring a particular conclusion at the time of writing
As I recall, a big part of his conclusion was that the population of much of England was already speaking some form of Germanic language before the anglo saxons arrived, and therefore before the Romans arrived, rather than being celtic as often assumed. The prior population replacement by the beaker people post-2000 BC isn’t in itself total disproof
Not sure that is a popular theory with linguists. Much of the naming of rivers and other natural features are definitely not Germanic and I have never seen any evidence that there as widespread usage of any form of Germanic language in Britain before the Romans. What is possible is that during the RB period there was a massive influx of Germanic speakers as Foederati and settlers but that doesn't support the idea of an extant Germanic population prior to the 1st century AD.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
The next problem will be enforcement. I suspect there is a reason that forged vaccination stickers/cards have already turned up.
Easier in the UK where vaccinations can be checked against NHS numbers etc. Less easy for those recruited from overseas.
A relative of min runs a building company. At one point some Eastern European gentlemen applied for work. Complete with shiny new UK passports. This was before accession of their country to the EU.
Interestingly the passports weren't forged - issued by the Home Office. They had absolutely no right to them, though....
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
Interesting. I might read his book again to see where, other than looking for evidence for a preferred conclusion, his analysis might be flawed
I don't think it is necessarily fair to say his analysis was flawed. It was based on the evidence available in the early 2000s. Obviously if he was still persisting in claiming everything he said was true one might question whether he is rather stuck in the mud. But the new evidence only emerged in 2018 so I don't think he can be accused of preferring a particular conclusion at the time of writing
As I recall, a big part of his conclusion was that the population of much of England was already speaking some form of Germanic language before the anglo saxons arrived, and therefore before the Romans arrived, rather than being celtic as often assumed. The prior population replacement by the beaker people post-2000 BC isn’t in itself total disproof
Not sure that is a popular theory with linguists. Much of the naming of rivers and other natural features are definitely not Germanic and I have never seen any evidence that there as widespread usage of any form of Germanic language in Britain before the Romans. What is possible is that during the RB period there was a massive influx of Germanic speakers as Foederati and settlers but that doesn't support the idea of an extant Germanic population prior to the 1st century AD.
The whole period 400 to 600 is such a blank canvass in our country's history. What do you think happened during that period?
Thank you for repeating the same assertions. Do you have evidence, please? Because, again, the evidence I saw said something very different. I’m willing to be corrected if you can prove your statements. (Incidentally, again, the polling I saw suggested that individual policies were popular but nobody thought they were properly costed.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the policies were popular as shown here - I don't remember a specific question on being properly costed, but the public are always sceptical (and they're usually right) about parties claiming that, and will often vote for a party on the basis that if they turn out to be able to afford half of it that's not bad. Corbyn was competitive with May as the BBC link shows, though many will think that a low bar - my recollection is that he attracted both more enthusiasm and more hostility than May but it evened out in 2017. What people think/thought of Corbyn is a bit irrelevant now, of course - we're discussing the policies.
There was also a survey (which I can't find) suggesting that Labour's vote increased more among people who thought Labour might win than people who didn't, which is a pretty normal pattern but contradicts the theory that people voted Labour because they were sure they'd lose. People don't in general think like that, in my experience.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
What evidence do you have for that? All the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite - that in 2017 Remainers voted a Labour to protest at Tory rhetoric in spite of Corbyn’s ‘fully costed’ policies (such as £300 million for 10,000 extra police) and then in 2019 they voted Tory because of his woeful leadership and unrealistic policies.
I've showed you the reasons people voted for Labour in 2017 previously, you purposefully forget because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Maybe they all lied and secretly told you the real reason they were voting Labour?
I'll take your word for it.
I do not recall you ever providing any evidence of this before. That is not because I am a liar, or because it doesn’t suit my agenda, it is simply that I cannot recall it. You may have done, or may not, but amazingly I don’t remember every word you post.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
I don't think the link says what Jezziah thinks it says.
According to that link only 41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Labour policies or due to supporting Corbyn. So 59% of Labour voters had other reasons.
The link suggests 57% of total Labour voters, about 25% of the voters liked Corbyn’s values or one or another of his policies (or had ‘always voted Labour’).
Which we already knew when the campaign was launched, that being roughly the figure the party was on in opinion polls at the time (25-29%). That does of course include ‘don’t knows’ or people who support parties reflexively because they don’t want to be don’t knows in opinion polls but never actually vote.
What is less obvious from this is why it suddenly surged during the campaign, which it clearly did because of the local election results.
The link Nick provides to the BBC is interesting as it notes Corbyn’s ratings did improve substantially during the campaign, which I think accounts for the 35% of people who voted for him personally, anti-Tory, anti-Theresa May or ‘best of a bad bunch.’ Certainly the vibe I was getting, and I don’t think I was alone, was that as May’s ratings cratered Corbyn’s shot up.
But what I don’t see here is any reference to Brexit at all (for Labour, that is). Which is puzzling. This could of course come under the ‘Policy’ section or ‘other.’ Again, though, I remember the boards here were full of discussions about how Corbyn had ‘neutralised’ the issue by talking about other things (not that it helped him in 2019).
What I’m certainly not seeing, from any of this, is clear evidence that its policy offering was the reason it did ‘so much better’ in 2017 than 2015. Even on the most generous assumptions, on policy offering alone it accounts for just over half of their vote, and I am assuming most of those voted for Miliband and Blair as well.
It is of course possible his policies tapped a groundswell of non-voters who then vanished again, but we need more evidence than this to say it for certain.
Definitely hit a ceiling now in max possible, which is a bit disappointing after hitting 600k a couple of weeks ago.
I'd guess that it's a a supply ceiling and that Pfizer doses are being held back for second doses at this point. We're two weeks away from needing to do first and second doses simultaneously so building up a stock of Pfizer is probably a pretty urgent concern right now.
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
Another example of the massive advantage conferred by those countries who worked as partners with, rather than customers of, the vaccine manufacturers, and invested early in production facilities.
Good job Canada is on a downward slope then -
That’s looking better.
A friend of mine is moving to Canada from the sandpit next month (he was an A380 pilot), and the logistics of doing so are incredibly difficult under the current restrictions there, he’s hoping things are somewhat easier by the time he travels.
Canada is mirroring the global trend at the mo. The Northern Hemisphere summer will provide some respite and, fingers crossed, next Autumn we will be looking at a very different world. Most people predicted this winter would be the most difficult and so it has proved.
Less easy to explain the decline in cases in the Southern Hemisphere and the Indian subcontinent - my own pet theory is that the virus has now picked off all its low hanging fruit and is finding it harder to find anyone with no immunity at all. Not the same thing as total population immunity but there are studies showing that some have a degree of preexisting immunity - presumably from being previously being exposed to other forms of coronavirus that cause colds. God knows you face enough pathogens as a youth in India. Add to those the vaccinated, and those exposed to this novel coronavirus this time round, the job for the virus becomes harder, not impossible, but harder.
Husband thinks that Klopp's mind may not be on the job for entirely understandable reasons, but even so a team that good shouldn't just keep imploding like this.
All of the sides below Liverpool down as far as Villa in 9th place now, in theory, have enough games in hand to overtake them, although how many can is a very different matter.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
Comments
A few small thing have been done.
Internationally Biden won in the US in 2020 from the centre, Trudeau won in 2015 and 2019 from the centre, Macron won in 2017 from the centre, few if any examples of winning from the left recently and certainly not from the far left, apart from briefly Syriza in Greece or Lopez Obrador in Mexico
Quite frankly if billionaires want to join Labour and push for higher taxes on billionaires I'd be delighted, if they started turning up on picket lanes with union workers I might just cry.
Also to clarify rich doesn't mean somebody earns more than minimum wage, I see where you are going with the at least comfortable enough to look after their family line. Where you would call the exact line of rich or not is questionable and probably arguable for everybody.
TBH I wouldn't want a poor person being able to buy the direction of the party
above and beyond everyone else in the party either but I mean for obvious reasons that isn't really a worry.
That's very disappointing number.
The European system decided to prioritise "building Europe" over human rights/democracy/legal concerns. This has long been their track record.
To give a personal example had a long retired grandfather who bought a house in a place where house prices rocketed, his final salary pension was probably decent but his assets made him rich.
My cousin from the same area works 2 jobs to afford rent a shared property with a friend in a dodgy area (of the same expensive place to live) on a purely wage basis you could argue she is richer than him, but the reality is completely the opposite.
She switched to voting Labour although he switched to UKIP rather than the Conservatives
My first fish-box arrived direct yesterday, which is why I am having Cornish scallops for lunch with tuna, in a suitable sauce.
I wonder how much potential there is for improving the UK consumption of fish?
One problem most of the "direct" sellers have is that too many of them are artisan fishmongers charging prices are in the Waitrose range - £25 per kg of fillet, £17 or so per kg of whole fish. Plus carriage.
Those prices will need to adjust to share the retail margin with the customer.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
We expect health care professionals to be properly trained with the relevant qualifications, we should also expect that they aren't spreading a deadly virus to the most vulnerable in society.
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
To ask the obvious dumb question: these geographically-based genetic differences only arise because mutations occur and spread through a population, and we also know that within a relatively short period (hundreds of years) most people are interrelated given the number of ancestors they have (this effect magnified in hugely smaller populations).
So what supports the conclusion that this genetic change represents extermination and replacement by migration, rather than mutation and spread by reproduction?
But if you want to win in future surely acting more like you did in the 3-2 is more likely to bring success than acting like you did in the 7-0.
Or can you not see the difference and you would insist that playing the same way that lost you 7-0 is preferable to trying some of the things that got you closer in the 3-2?
I mean look if your point is you want Labour to lose 7-0, you and me both, they should crack on and get hammered.
My point is if they want to win they have to look at some of the stuff from the 3-2 because that clearly worked better for them than the approach in the 7-0
Can you really not understand this simple point?
I know you want to pretend not to understand for the sake of your politicfal biases but I have broken it down so simply now that you surely can't even pretend to miss it?
Also before we get back to that strawman nobody (relevant) is saying Corbyn back as leader.
I got the feeling in 2017 we did go for those people to an extent, quite frankly if you were older and wealthier though the country was going pretty good, maybe needed a brexit but the changes for the the non retired sounded a bit much. I don't think our problem in 2017 was 'hand-wringing' our problems in 2019 were many!
Otherwise why do teams bother with managers. Once they've won once they've obviously got a winning formula that'll always win. No need for a manager.
All you are doing is saying "well that worked so if we tweak it a little it'll work again but better". Which is nonsense as events move on and things change. By all means keeping playing those same tactics though.
I was merely correcting that. If you'd just said "he lost" - no issue. He did.
In the UK this millennium Labour have only won over significant new voters under a left wing leader whilst mostly losing them (Ed gained a small amount) under non left leaders
Internationally you can make lots of arguments depending what exotic locations you want to head to...
However it is striking that median individual earnings in new seats the Tories gained in 2019 at £22,600 are lower than median earnings in seats Labour held in 2019 at £23,800.
Though seats the Tories held in 2019 still have the highest average incomes at £25,100
https://www.ft.com/content/48495b7f-b749-407b-9cfe-c1a34f6a9cf5
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1360495409588805632
Thesis - since public services became prominent in the UK (Victorian period), there have been 3 issues - minimising capacity (in the name of efficiency), inflexibility and producer interest capture - "There is one option, that is what we do and we do it when *we* want"
Proposal - deliberate over capacity in service provision. This is to provide better service in good times and surge space in emergencies. It would also allow for competition *inside* the nationally owned system
Example 1 - NHS. Deliberate funding of excess capacity, with extra staffing included. This would take the form of more hospitals, rather than just increasing the size of existing one. The idea is that for epidemics - more capacity. In normal times - faster service, and the ability to chose your hospital.
Example 2 - Education. In order to decrease class sizes, build more schools and employ more teachers. The idea is to decrease crowding (epidemics). Also, to have surge capacity in schools to enable mobility within the UK, and create school choice.
So I completely agree with you, times change, what worked a few years ago might work now with some modification.. what worked 20 odd years ago is mostly long dead and buried.
I am glad you can see the logic in abandoning long dead tactics in favour of ones that have produced better results in the more recent past with modifications to make them relevant for the modern day, whether we are talking politics or football it is true.
So 2017 is the closest Labour have come to winning a game without going back to some long dead age, so you need to take some of the good parts from there and modify it to fit 202X rather than reaching back decades to some long dead footballing age.
So a steady drip of changes in terms and conditions, un-spoken "need a vaccination for this job"* and some anguished articles in the Guardian about institutional racism.
*Badly enforced and causing damage to all parties due to it not being formalised.
In the early hours last November we saw Trump go odds on. Biden won comprehensively. Trump lost comprehensively. Not as comprehensively as Corbyn lost 2017 but not far off.
The bookies were wrong. Or the punters were.
Hence it needs to be Parliament that grasps the issue.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
its an epitaph not an introduction.
These are all reasons why Labour does as well in high-income brackets as it does in others. The difference in party allegiance nowadays is overwhelmingly age, not income. Which is as disturbing for traditional Marxists as it is for traditional Conservatives, but we all have to get used to it.
https://twitter.com/lottelydia/status/1360581449049636871
Biden won by 51% to Trump's 47% last year, a 4% gap, the Tories won by 43% to 32% for Corbyn Labour in 2019, an 11% gap, so the 2020 result in the US was closer to the 2% gap in the 2017 UK general election result than the 11% gap in the 2019 UK general election result
Canada has secured the world's largest number of potential vaccine doses per capita - but it's struggling to get its hands on some of those doses and to get jabs into arms.
So what's going on?
Well, it seems the country wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs from Moderna and Pfizer. That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans. But European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU, not the US, that has been threatening those bans."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56052537
Relying on China for your plastic tat is one thing, solely relying on them for the crucial chemicals that make up key drugs is another.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
I've just received a great e-mail from Sean Gabb, with a series of lectures he gave on the downfall of the Roman Republic. One of the points he makes, which is a good one, is that once someone with sufficient power decides they will not be bound by a particular political convention, that political convention vanishes.
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
Also in reference to my original point that I should have expanded on more or worded better I just didn't want Labour to be run on the say of big individual rich donors, if a donor and the party happen to agree on something great, or if a rich person just wants to give the party lots of money because they believe in it.
It is partially a principle thing, it'd be nice and I wouldn't be too angry but it would be equally unacceptable in Labour from a left wing direction, if the Labour movement wanted to support something that was okay electorally but a big donor alone stopped it for personal reasons that would be bad even if I agreed with whatever left wing thing it is.
According to that link only 41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Labour policies or due to supporting Corbyn. So 59% of Labour voters had other reasons.
If you are in such a fortunate position, why wouldn't you just keep quiet about it?
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date
Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865
East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889
London 51,432 325 1,449,924
Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791
North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006
North West 46,711 422 1,698,709
South East 70,956 906 2,074,342
South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
Definitely hit a ceiling now in max possible, which is a bit disappointing after hitting 600k a couple of weeks ago.
A friend of mine is moving to Canada from the sandpit next month (he was an A380 pilot), and the logistics of doing so are incredibly difficult under the current restrictions there, he’s hoping things are somewhat easier by the time he travels.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
Interestingly the passports weren't forged - issued by the Home Office. They had absolutely no right to them, though....
Which we already knew when the campaign was launched, that being roughly the figure the party was on in opinion polls at the time (25-29%). That does of course include ‘don’t knows’ or people who support parties reflexively because they don’t want to be don’t knows in opinion polls but never actually vote.
What is less obvious from this is why it suddenly surged during the campaign, which it clearly did because of the local election results.
The link Nick provides to the BBC is interesting as it notes Corbyn’s ratings did improve substantially during the campaign, which I think accounts for the 35% of people who voted for him personally, anti-Tory, anti-Theresa May or ‘best of a bad bunch.’ Certainly the vibe I was getting, and I don’t think I was alone, was that as May’s ratings cratered Corbyn’s shot up.
But what I don’t see here is any reference to Brexit at all (for Labour, that is). Which is puzzling. This could of course come under the ‘Policy’ section or ‘other.’ Again, though, I remember the boards here were full of discussions about how Corbyn had ‘neutralised’ the issue by talking about other things (not that it helped him in 2019).
What I’m certainly not seeing, from any of this, is clear evidence that its policy offering was the reason it did ‘so much better’ in 2017 than 2015. Even on the most generous assumptions, on policy offering alone it accounts for just over half of their vote, and I am assuming most of those voted for Miliband and Blair as well.
It is of course possible his policies tapped a groundswell of non-voters who then vanished again, but we need more evidence than this to say it for certain.
Less easy to explain the decline in cases in the Southern Hemisphere and the Indian subcontinent - my own pet theory is that the virus has now picked off all its low hanging fruit and is finding it harder to find anyone with no immunity at all. Not the same thing as total population immunity but there are studies showing that some have a degree of preexisting immunity - presumably from being previously being exposed to other forms of coronavirus that cause colds. God knows you face enough pathogens as a youth in India. Add to those the vaccinated, and those exposed to this novel coronavirus this time round, the job for the virus becomes harder, not impossible, but harder.
All of the sides below Liverpool down as far as Villa in 9th place now, in theory, have enough games in hand to overtake them, although how many can is a very different matter.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.