My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
"Hello, I've just moved in next door. Would you like to place a large political wager?" I am tickled. A bottle of wine or a cake or a request to borrow a cup of sugar is more traditional for this situation.
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
In Feb 2020 Ladbrokes were offering 11/10 for Sturgeon to go by the end of the year, can't be arsed digging about their site for their current price. Indicates the wish being the father of the punt in this particular market. Do a bit of humming and hawing and see if you can squeeze a bigger price out of her or at least a shorter time frame.
Global Covid herd immunity won't be possible for a while yet, but the population pyramid of African countries (1.216B pop) makes vaccinating the more vulnerable there require less absolute numbers of vaccines compared to the more vulnerable in Europe and North America (741M + 365M)
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
Of course it is "a legal consideration" the party name and the icon for the party are both printed on the ballot paper. 🙄
I get why they would look to a figure which looks more positive in comparison, but it seems awfully short sighted - while the supply issues will go away, they surely know that given the UK's already done so many first doses it will very quickly overtake on second doses soon. So why introduce that as the measure for success when it will quickly be overtaken?
I'll leave aside the continuing implication that the first does is basically meaningless for protection.
It was awfully short-sighted to criticise one of the main vaccines in their own vaccine programme to try and score a political point. Seems that there is a lot of short-term thinking going on in the EC currently.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
Why do you think 2nd doses will slow down after 10-20 days? Or did I read that wrong.
Surely they will just keep on going until they hit 15m by the end of April - ie 10 weeks ish from Feb 15.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Yes but Keith is meant in a derogatory way,
The only "Gordon" most knew was from the song.... "Gordon is a moron". Not flattering.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
Apologies for the tough words but this is the same as the UK being accused of starting a vaccine war by the commission who were at the time threatening export bans to override legally binding contracts from private companies.
The EU commission is making this a comparison or contest, I'm simply pointing out just how futile that comparison is. The effort by the commission should be spent on promoting the UK clinical data that shows the AZ vaccine has ~90% efficacy against hospitalisation three weeks after the first dose and debunking the bullshit fake news about side effects that seem to be being promoted by French and German media outlets based on selective reporting of UK yellow card data which showed 11k cases of adverse effects from 3.5m doses of AZ and 20k cases from 7m of Pfizer, the latter being completely ignored and the former being shown as some kind of disaster.
The whole acrimony between the EU commission and the UK/AZ has led to a worse vaccine programme in the EU and lower take up. The only losers from the commission's idiotic fight have been the European people, which is a huge shame. Now they're doing it again by trying to discredit the UK's single dose strategy but that has been used to great effect in getting the virus under control and reducing the threat of a third wave filling up hospitals to a much lower level. If anything the commission and EMA should be looking at our data and adjusting the rollout strategies across the whole EU to match the UK so 50% of doses don't need to be held back. Instead they're banging on about single doses somehow not counting towards the total.
Your ire would be better directed at the commission and your own government that has made huge missteps by trying to discredit the AZ vaccine and the UK rollout scheme.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
And as you know equally well, the thing that matters to most people when voting is who is going to form the government in the immediate aftermath of the election. The exact identity of their local MP is at best a niche concern, even for the switched-on minority who can actually name the MP more than a few months on from polling day.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Yes but Keith is meant in a derogatory way,
The only "Gordon" most knew was from the song.... "Gordon is a moron". Not flattering.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
I'd also be on the not resign side of the bet - but make sure that you are agreed what position you are talking about? Resign as First Minister of Scotland, or resign as Party Leader of the SNP? I can think of an (unlikely, but possible) scenario where she resigns as party leader whilst an investigation is ongoing, but retains her position as First Minister. Equally, (and much more unlikely) there is the possibility that the SNP lose the elections (stop laughing at the back) and she resigns as First Minister, but stays as SNP Party Leader.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
On this you are incorrect.
The EU was the entity that started the talk of vaccine wars, lawsuits, nationalising IP, embargoes, vaccines being crap, triggering articles in the Brexit deal etc etc.
The UK government response was on the lines of "Somone doing these things would be ill advised"
MaxPB is just posting the facts about the vaccine rollout - the UK second does will have to move up massively, because they are becoming due.
The EU program(s) will not be able to match that rate.
I get why they would look to a figure which looks more positive in comparison, but it seems awfully short sighted - while the supply issues will go away, they surely know that given the UK's already done so many first doses it will very quickly overtake on second doses soon. So why introduce that as the measure for success when it will quickly be overtaken?
I'll leave aside the continuing implication that the first does is basically meaningless for protection.
It was awfully short-sighted to criticise one of the main vaccines in their own vaccine programme to try and score a political point. Seems that there is a lot of short-term thinking going on in the EC currently.
There seems to be genuine astonishment at the way the vaccine procurement has gone down. They didn't appear to anticipate that other countries such as Israel, the USA and especially the UK would go to such extraordinary lengths to secure faster supply.
Thankfully we are not still talking about the Brexit trade negotiations. It's not difficult to imagine a last-minute demand for vaccine-sharing to have been inserted if the positions had been known back in December.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Much truth here. From the drooling coverage of "Boris" and "Rishi" you could be forgiven for thinking that the press was owned by people with a strident pro-Con, anti-Lab agenda.
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Yes but Keith is meant in a derogatory way,
The only "Gordon" most knew was from the song.... "Gordon is a moron". Not flattering.
There's also Mr Ramsay. And Mr Bennett.
And, er, Mr Flash?
Gordon Ramsey. Famous for his foul mouth and throwing things around.
And Gordon Bennett, an exclamation now superseded by "Oh, FFS....."
Which leaves Flash. Which he tried to distance himself from. Because he didn't need the full 14 hours to save the Earth....
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
Why do you think 2nd doses will slow down after 10-20 days? Or did I read that wrong.
Surely they will just keep on going until they hit 15m by the end of April - ie 10 weeks ish from Feb 15.
MaxPB means the lead in the completed vaccinated number for the EU. Within a few weeks the UK will have to be vaccinating the second doses for those already given their 1st.
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
"Hello, I've just moved in next door. Would you like to place a large political wager?" I am tickled. A bottle of wine or a cake or a request to borrow a cup of sugar is more traditional for this situation.
We've had the bottle of wine. It moved on to political philosophy and then onto political betting. I confess I may have led her on a bit!
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
First of all, welcome!
The media have an impact, thats not in doubt. I'm not sure its quite as you portray it though. Murdoch has a simple rule with politicians anywhere he owns newspapers globally - back the winners. You mentioned 40 years so lets go back over a few elections and ask why we got the result we did.
83 - Foot & Labour unelectable, Falklands War success for Thatcher 87 - Far more people did well under the Tories than they had done under Labour in the 70s. Kinnock had started the process of turning Labour away from the abyss but not by long 92 - Fascinating election. The press attacks were almost entirely on "Welsh windbag" Kinnock - had Smith been leader then Labour could have won. Hard to blame the press for making up smears of Neil "we're alright!" Kinnock, he did that himself. Major a genuine breath of fresh air with his brilliant soapbox campaign 97 - Labour utterly unstoppable regardless of what the hostile press tried to throw at it. The contrast between them and a Tory party exhausted and fighting itself made it inevitable 01 - No party recovers from a landslide in one election, especially when Labour were delivering and the Tories were led by William Hague 05 - Iraq seriously damaged Blair but thanks to the moron IDS also backing war it wasn't close. "Are you thinking what we're thinking" asked Michael "something of the night about him" Howard, and the public largely said "ewww no" 10 - Despite the Cameron coronation, despite the financial crash, despite Brown's obvious failings, the Tories still failed to get near a majority 15 - A combination of a Labour policy vacuum (nothing really to say to the majority in the middle other than slogans) and a government that was broadly seen as having been solid. 17 - Remainers tactically voting Labour and Kippers tactically voting Tory. That 2.3m more Tory votes made it almost impossible to lose. 19 - Corbyn & Brexit
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
I'd also be on the not resign side of the bet - but make sure that you are agreed what position you are talking about? Resign as First Minister of Scotland, or resign as Party Leader of the SNP? I can think of an (unlikely, but possible) scenario where she resigns as party leader whilst an investigation is ongoing, but retains her position as First Minister. Equally, (and much more unlikely) there is the possibility that the SNP lose the elections (stop laughing at the back) and she resigns as First Minister, but stays as SNP Party Leader.
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
Tbf to Brown though. He had many qualities. Getting up like a Sex Machine didn't instantly spring to mind as one of them.
The one certainty is that he is damaging those who want independence.
Lots of Nats seem to take the view that it is Nicola who is damaging for independence. They claim she does plenty of huffing and puffing about it, but that's all she has ever done, and they reckon she has no intention of doing otherwise.
Can we have a thread header on this Salmond/Sturgeon thing please? I honestly have no idea what's going on.
Since most people on here have an aversion to Wings, I recommend Gordon Dangerfield's blog for a primer - you won't find the full story or details in the MSM
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Yes but Keith is meant in a derogatory way,
Why? It's just his name.
His name is Keir, mate.
Eh, is that even a real name? Admit it, you made that up.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
Of course it is "a legal consideration" the party name and the icon for the party are both printed on the ballot paper. 🙄
Indeed! Which is why an MP must seek a byelection if they resign from the party...
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
I don't doubt he knows more than I do, but I would think the same about a German who said to me "hey we're looking at Britain in the rear view mirror on the deaths per million metric"
Very telling that you have no conception of what I'm talking about, but it's natural that British people remain obsessed with Brexit, when the rest of the world moved on a few years ago.
I was about to say there's no way she didn't have legal advice when was throwing her earlier tantrums, but she is the one who either sought to trigger article 16 without even telling ROI, or her subordinates did it without telling her.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Yes but Keith is meant in a derogatory way,
No doubt Keith will, in time, come to see the epithet "the Mobile Boring Machine" in the same affectionate way......
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
Of course it is "a legal consideration" the party name and the icon for the party are both printed on the ballot paper. 🙄
Indeed! Which is why an MP must seek a byelection if they resign from the party...
They don't any more than they must seek a byelection if they change their name they were elected under.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
It's almost as if I'm being paid to do it (I am). Vaccine programmes are going to be the primary focus of economic growth over the next year or so which is why we've been doing so much research on it in my team. It's also why we've been paying for industry sources on supply chains across world so we can guage delivery levels for each country based on how much and when they made their purchases.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
And as you know equally well, the thing that matters to most people when voting is who is going to form the government in the immediate aftermath of the election. The exact identity of their local MP is at best a niche concern, even for the switched-on minority who can actually name the MP more than a few months on from polling day.
I can't help how people choose to interpret how our democratic system. Nobody votes for a Prime Minister - appointed by the Queen - or a government. Its like the Brexit referendum - that nobody voted to legally bind successive governments to leave the customs union doesn't stop many people (and some on here) insisting they did.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
First of all, welcome!
The media have an impact, thats not in doubt. I'm not sure its quite as you portray it though. Murdoch has a simple rule with politicians anywhere he owns newspapers globally - back the winners. You mentioned 40 years so lets go back over a few elections and ask why we got the result we did.
83 - Foot & Labour unelectable, Falklands War success for Thatcher 87 - Far more people did well under the Tories than they had done under Labour in the 70s. Kinnock had started the process of turning Labour away from the abyss but not by long 92 - Fascinating election. The press attacks were almost entirely on "Welsh windbag" Kinnock - had Smith been leader then Labour could have won. Hard to blame the press for making up smears of Neil "we're alright!" Kinnock, he did that himself. Major a genuine breath of fresh air with his brilliant soapbox campaign 97 - Labour utterly unstoppable regardless of what the hostile press tried to throw at it. The contrast between them and a Tory party exhausted and fighting itself made it inevitable 01 - No party recovers from a landslide in one election, especially when Labour were delivering and the Tories were led by William Hague 05 - Iraq seriously damaged Blair but thanks to the moron IDS also backing war it wasn't close. "Are you thinking what we're thinking" asked Michael "something of the night about him" Howard, and the public largely said "ewww no" 10 - Despite the Cameron coronation, despite the financial crash, despite Brown's obvious failings, the Tories still failed to get near a majority 15 - A combination of a Labour policy vacuum (nothing really to say to the majority in the middle other than slogans) and a government that was broadly seen as having been solid. 17 - Remainers tactically voting Labour and Kippers tactically voting Tory. That 2.3m more Tory votes made it almost impossible to lose. 19 - Corbyn & Brexit
I'm not sure the media are *that* powerful...
I agree with some if not all of what you have said, but I remember vividly, the headline in the sun, on polling day, will the last man out of the country turn the lights out, about, clever, ultimately unfair, but without doubt had an impact
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
It's almost as if I'm being paid to do it (I am). Vaccine programmes are going to be the primary focus of economic growth over the next year or so which is why we've been doing so much research on it in my team. It's also why we've been paying for industry sources on supply chains across world so we can guage delivery levels for each country based on how much and when they made their purchases.
We are very fortunate to have you share as much as you do. Thank you.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
Wow you really have no judgement at all. 😂
Welcome to the new poster but its all been torn apart, in our usual convenial manner. The Tories don't control the media and as discussed parties on both sides of the divide have nicknames and first names used.
Blaming the media means you don't have to actually consider the dreaded possibility that being a far left nutcase might be a problem for the electorate.
Of course our virtuous ways and righteous arguments are wonderful. We would've won the election too, if it hadn't been for that meddling media!
[There are many legitimate grounds to criticise the media. Claiming they're totally pro-Tory and that's why the evil rightwingers win elections a lot is one-eyed nonsense].
Differing case rates across Europe - why border restrictions will stay.
And UvdL is demanding Germany opens her borders?
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. The EU is a cult not a rational organisation.
When Melbourne gets cases NSW and SA close their borders so that there's no travel permitted between Melbourne and Sydney or Adelaide. You don't have the Federal PM screaming that borders must open to protect freedom of movement.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
Well, I didn't go after the claim that 'it's inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders' because it was just too easy...
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
First of all, welcome!
The media have an impact, thats not in doubt. I'm not sure its quite as you portray it though. Murdoch has a simple rule with politicians anywhere he owns newspapers globally - back the winners. You mentioned 40 years so lets go back over a few elections and ask why we got the result we did.
83 - Foot & Labour unelectable, Falklands War success for Thatcher 87 - Far more people did well under the Tories than they had done under Labour in the 70s. Kinnock had started the process of turning Labour away from the abyss but not by long 92 - Fascinating election. The press attacks were almost entirely on "Welsh windbag" Kinnock - had Smith been leader then Labour could have won. Hard to blame the press for making up smears of Neil "we're alright!" Kinnock, he did that himself. Major a genuine breath of fresh air with his brilliant soapbox campaign 97 - Labour utterly unstoppable regardless of what the hostile press tried to throw at it. The contrast between them and a Tory party exhausted and fighting itself made it inevitable 01 - No party recovers from a landslide in one election, especially when Labour were delivering and the Tories were led by William Hague 05 - Iraq seriously damaged Blair but thanks to the moron IDS also backing war it wasn't close. "Are you thinking what we're thinking" asked Michael "something of the night about him" Howard, and the public largely said "ewww no" 10 - Despite the Cameron coronation, despite the financial crash, despite Brown's obvious failings, the Tories still failed to get near a majority 15 - A combination of a Labour policy vacuum (nothing really to say to the majority in the middle other than slogans) and a government that was broadly seen as having been solid. 17 - Remainers tactically voting Labour and Kippers tactically voting Tory. That 2.3m more Tory votes made it almost impossible to lose. 19 - Corbyn & Brexit
I'm not sure the media are *that* powerful...
My political background is probably different to yours, Rochdale, but there's not much I can disagree with there.
Reading and Leeds festivals to go ahead. Somewhat brave. The bacchanalia will be strong.
That's a big nod to normality. Mass gatherings and nightclubs are my litmus tests for answering Yes to "Is this really over?"
Yes, and it's why I would expect that the end of the Government's four-stage plan also implies the binning of social distancing and (in most circumstances at least) face masks. It goes without saying that neither is at all practical in a nightclub, and I would interpret the promise to scrap all restrictions on social contact as necessarily meaning the end of social distancing as well.
I can still see masks carrying on for a while - most likely on public transport - and they might return in some other circumstances and settings as the medics start to fret about Covid + Flu making a two-pronged attacked this Winter. But I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that, barring vaccine escape, which seems mercifully quite unlikely, nearly all of the Covid restrictions will be burnt once the Government feels reassured enough to complete the unlocking program.
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
I don't doubt he knows more than I do, but I would think the same about a German who said to me "hey we're looking at Britain in the rear view mirror on the deaths per million metric"
Very telling that you have no conception of what I'm talking about, but it's natural that British people remain obsessed with Brexit, when the rest of the world moved on a few years ago.
You're bringing brexit into this, the commission is making these duff comparisons. As for the deaths per million measure, I've said many, many times that Germany have had a much better time of it and I think it would be fair to make that comparison so the UK government learns from all of the terrible mistakes it has made.
That's my interest in this, that we all learn from each other's best practices. The UK has got a lot of hard work to do and a lot to learn from best cases in Europe and APAC to ensure that we never have the same issues again and another ~150k people don't die unnecessarily. I think the EU commission and European governments have got a lot to learn from the UK's vaccine programme and scientific approach on the virus itself wrt sequencing and non-vaccine pharmaceutical trials in the NHS which has yielded three potentially lifesaving treatments and quite a few more candidates in P3 trials.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
And as you know equally well, the thing that matters to most people when voting is who is going to form the government in the immediate aftermath of the election. The exact identity of their local MP is at best a niche concern, even for the switched-on minority who can actually name the MP more than a few months on from polling day.
I can't help how people choose to interpret how our democratic system. Nobody votes for a Prime Minister - appointed by the Queen - or a government. Its like the Brexit referendum - that nobody voted to legally bind successive governments to leave the customs union doesn't stop many people (and some on here) insisting they did.
I think everyone is aware no one technically votes for the PM outside their own constituency. I doubt the casual terminology is confusing or a sign people dont know that, especially as plenty of people will vote for their local candidate based on who the likely PM will be.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent. "Boris" is a powerful political brand. It's worth a great deal to him. And part of the brand is that everyone calls him "Boris" as if they know him. This is the point. The point is not that literally every individual person who calls him "Boris" is being duped into ignoring his faults or voting for him. It's about the drip drip macro effect.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Welcome. Good to have someone on the left on here.
That said re your post, the media may or may not be powerful because people buy or consume it. What I have noticed often, although have no analysis, is that Rupert backs the winner. He waits until it is reasonably clear who will be winning and then says - these people should win. Most noticeably he did it with the EURef.
And down my way, while much remains illegal - who you can have sex with, how many people can meet in a park, etc, buying the Socialist Worker or Living Marxism remains unprohibited.
All those left of centre media outlets need to do is to become popular and their views will also be heard more broadly.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
First of all, welcome!
The media have an impact, thats not in doubt. I'm not sure its quite as you portray it though. Murdoch has a simple rule with politicians anywhere he owns newspapers globally - back the winners. You mentioned 40 years so lets go back over a few elections and ask why we got the result we did.
83 - Foot & Labour unelectable, Falklands War success for Thatcher 87 - Far more people did well under the Tories than they had done under Labour in the 70s. Kinnock had started the process of turning Labour away from the abyss but not by long 92 - Fascinating election. The press attacks were almost entirely on "Welsh windbag" Kinnock - had Smith been leader then Labour could have won. Hard to blame the press for making up smears of Neil "we're alright!" Kinnock, he did that himself. Major a genuine breath of fresh air with his brilliant soapbox campaign 97 - Labour utterly unstoppable regardless of what the hostile press tried to throw at it. The contrast between them and a Tory party exhausted and fighting itself made it inevitable 01 - No party recovers from a landslide in one election, especially when Labour were delivering and the Tories were led by William Hague 05 - Iraq seriously damaged Blair but thanks to the moron IDS also backing war it wasn't close. "Are you thinking what we're thinking" asked Michael "something of the night about him" Howard, and the public largely said "ewww no" 10 - Despite the Cameron coronation, despite the financial crash, despite Brown's obvious failings, the Tories still failed to get near a majority 15 - A combination of a Labour policy vacuum (nothing really to say to the majority in the middle other than slogans) and a government that was broadly seen as having been solid. 17 - Remainers tactically voting Labour and Kippers tactically voting Tory. That 2.3m more Tory votes made it almost impossible to lose. 19 - Corbyn & Brexit
I'm not sure the media are *that* powerful...
I agree with some if not all of what you have said, but I remember vividly, the headline in the sun, on polling day, will the last man out of the country turn the lights out, about, clever, ultimately unfair, but without doubt had an impact
Yes, such a pity that the voters of this country are mindless drones, without intellect or free will beyond what they read in the last headline.
Either that, or the voters pick up on the not-so-subtle hint that Labour holds them in contempt, and quietly put their tick in the box of the people who don't...
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Man, the buzz you get from Pfizer is unreal. The Ay-Zee though, that's totally sick, best trip ever. Don't even get me started on the Double Johnson...
The one certainty is that he is damaging those who want independence.
Lots of Nats seem to take the view that it is Nicola who is damaging for independence. They claim she does plenty of huffing and puffing about it, but that's all she has ever done, and they reckon she has no intention of doing otherwise.
Sounds like sheer nonsense.
Prior to my recent visits to the the Vicar of Bath's blog, I'd have thought so too.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
ydoethur is not on the left.
He was noting that it is not his first name, I suspect Philip was thinking more generally of people who get anxious about the use of Boris, and specifically if they are anxious that it is not his 'real' name.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
I'm sure they publish full details of who they ask as well - Tories of under 1 years' membership, Tories of between 1-5 years' membership, Tories of 5-10 years' membership, and so on.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 284,897 9,581 294,478 East Of England 30,999 1,596 32,595 London 47,124 1,251 48,375 Midlands 56,752 1,738 58,490 North East And Yorkshire 40,472 1,684 42,156 North West 32,797 580 33,377 South East 43,609 1,354 44,963 South West 31,455 1,362 32,817
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
Reading and Leeds festivals to go ahead. Somewhat brave. The bacchanalia will be strong.
That's a big nod to normality. Mass gatherings and nightclubs are my litmus tests for answering Yes to "Is this really over?"
Yes, and it's why I would expect that the end of the Government's four-stage plan also implies the binning of social distancing and (in most circumstances at least) face masks. It goes without saying that neither is at all practical in a nightclub, and I would interpret the promise to scrap all restrictions on social contact as necessarily meaning the end of social distancing as well.
I can still see masks carrying on for a while - most likely on public transport - and they might return in some other circumstances and settings as the medics start to fret about Covid + Flu making a two-pronged attacked this Winter. But I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that, barring vaccine escape, which seems mercifully quite unlikely, nearly all of the Covid restrictions will be burnt once the Government feels reassured enough to complete the unlocking program.
Yes, think so. I'll probably continue with a mask in shops and on buses and trains for a while, also avoiding crowds and giving people a wide berth on the street, it's become ingrained, plus I'm a bit like that anyway, a lone wolf, a kind of a taciturn man-with-no-name with a 3 day stubble and thousand yard stare who ghosts around Hampstead just observing observing observing, but that's just a personal thing, and voluntary, and so for all intents and purposes, June 21st, the pandemic is over and Covid is Flu.
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I also heard he used his pipe as a means of gaining time to think when asked a question - fiddling with it to cover awkward silence as he considered his response.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Yes but Keith is meant in a derogatory way,
The only "Gordon" most knew was from the song.... "Gordon is a moron". Not flattering.
The one certainty is that he is damaging those who want independence.
Lots of Nats seem to take the view that it is Nicola who is damaging for independence. They claim she does plenty of huffing and puffing about it, but that's all she has ever done, and they reckon she has no intention of doing otherwise.
Sounds like sheer nonsense.
Prior to my recent visits to the the Vicar of Bath's blog, I'd have thought so too.
That seems more a litany of things to show that she has overpromised on when things will happen, rather than that she has no actual intention of seeking Sindy. That is, that she is not effective enough, rather than duplicitous
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
And as you know equally well, the thing that matters to most people when voting is who is going to form the government in the immediate aftermath of the election. The exact identity of their local MP is at best a niche concern, even for the switched-on minority who can actually name the MP more than a few months on from polling day.
I can't help how people choose to interpret how our democratic system. Nobody votes for a Prime Minister - appointed by the Queen - or a government. Its like the Brexit referendum - that nobody voted to legally bind successive governments to leave the customs union doesn't stop many people (and some on here) insisting they did.
Indeed you can't, but you could stop pretending that our long-established party-based system doesn't exist, just because it isn't in our unwritten Constitution.
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I also heard he used his pipe as a means of gaining time to think when asked a question - fiddling with it to cover awkward silence as he considered his response.
Who was it who said that whenever they were asked a question they found troubling or awkward to answer their first tactic was to respond by repeating the same question back at the questioner very slowly, in order to gain time.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
I don't doubt he knows more than I do, but I would think the same about a German who said to me "hey we're looking at Britain in the rear view mirror on the deaths per million metric"
Very telling that you have no conception of what I'm talking about, but it's natural that British people remain obsessed with Brexit, when the rest of the world moved on a few years ago.
It strikes me that you are the only one round here today wittering on about Brexit.
As Max has since confirmed he is in a position to know far more than you or I will probably ever know about vaccine supplies not just in the UK but around the world.
But you just carry on claiming its all about Brexit if it makes you feel better.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Comments
Surely they will just keep on going until they hit 15m by the end of April - ie 10 weeks ish from Feb 15.
https://twitter.com/AP_Africa/status/1364535762004369409
Although it does seem that the German AZ allocation has ended up in Bulgaria as Old Holburn commented on receiving it.
The EU commission is making this a comparison or contest, I'm simply pointing out just how futile that comparison is. The effort by the commission should be spent on promoting the UK clinical data that shows the AZ vaccine has ~90% efficacy against hospitalisation three weeks after the first dose and debunking the bullshit fake news about side effects that seem to be being promoted by French and German media outlets based on selective reporting of UK yellow card data which showed 11k cases of adverse effects from 3.5m doses of AZ and 20k cases from 7m of Pfizer, the latter being completely ignored and the former being shown as some kind of disaster.
The whole acrimony between the EU commission and the UK/AZ has led to a worse vaccine programme in the EU and lower take up. The only losers from the commission's idiotic fight have been the European people, which is a huge shame. Now they're doing it again by trying to discredit the UK's single dose strategy but that has been used to great effect in getting the virus under control and reducing the threat of a third wave filling up hospitals to a much lower level. If anything the commission and EMA should be looking at our data and adjusting the rollout strategies across the whole EU to match the UK so 50% of doses don't need to be held back. Instead they're banging on about single doses somehow not counting towards the total.
Your ire would be better directed at the commission and your own government that has made huge missteps by trying to discredit the AZ vaccine and the UK rollout scheme.
And, er, Mr Flash?
And why does no-one in Europe want them? Eh?
The EU was the entity that started the talk of vaccine wars, lawsuits, nationalising IP, embargoes, vaccines being crap, triggering articles in the Brexit deal etc etc.
The UK government response was on the lines of "Somone doing these things would be ill advised"
MaxPB is just posting the facts about the vaccine rollout - the UK second does will have to move up massively, because they are becoming due.
The EU program(s) will not be able to match that rate.
Thankfully we are not still talking about the Brexit trade negotiations. It's not difficult to imagine a last-minute demand for vaccine-sharing to have been inserted if the positions had been known back in December.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
And Gordon Bennett, an exclamation now superseded by "Oh, FFS....."
Which leaves Flash. Which he tried to distance himself from. Because he didn't need the full 14 hours to save the Earth....
MaxPB means the lead in the completed vaccinated number for the EU. Within a few weeks the UK will have to be vaccinating the second doses for those already given their 1st.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1364568315436412929?s=20
The media have an impact, thats not in doubt. I'm not sure its quite as you portray it though. Murdoch has a simple rule with politicians anywhere he owns newspapers globally - back the winners. You mentioned 40 years so lets go back over a few elections and ask why we got the result we did.
83 - Foot & Labour unelectable, Falklands War success for Thatcher
87 - Far more people did well under the Tories than they had done under Labour in the 70s. Kinnock had started the process of turning Labour away from the abyss but not by long
92 - Fascinating election. The press attacks were almost entirely on "Welsh windbag" Kinnock - had Smith been leader then Labour could have won. Hard to blame the press for making up smears of Neil "we're alright!" Kinnock, he did that himself. Major a genuine breath of fresh air with his brilliant soapbox campaign
97 - Labour utterly unstoppable regardless of what the hostile press tried to throw at it. The contrast between them and a Tory party exhausted and fighting itself made it inevitable
01 - No party recovers from a landslide in one election, especially when Labour were delivering and the Tories were led by William Hague
05 - Iraq seriously damaged Blair but thanks to the moron IDS also backing war it wasn't close. "Are you thinking what we're thinking" asked Michael "something of the night about him" Howard, and the public largely said "ewww no"
10 - Despite the Cameron coronation, despite the financial crash, despite Brown's obvious failings, the Tories still failed to get near a majority
15 - A combination of a Labour policy vacuum (nothing really to say to the majority in the middle other than slogans) and a government that was broadly seen as having been solid.
17 - Remainers tactically voting Labour and Kippers tactically voting Tory. That 2.3m more Tory votes made it almost impossible to lose.
19 - Corbyn & Brexit
I'm not sure the media are *that* powerful...
"STFU."
Getting up like a Sex Machine didn't instantly spring to mind as one of them.
https://gordondangerfield.com/
repeat
Very telling that you have no conception of what I'm talking about, but it's natural that British people remain obsessed with Brexit, when the rest of the world moved on a few years ago.
So anything is possible.
Its still a consideration on the paper.
Welcome to the new poster but its all been torn apart, in our usual convenial manner. The Tories don't control the media and as discussed parties on both sides of the divide have nicknames and first names used.
Of course our virtuous ways and righteous arguments are wonderful. We would've won the election too, if it hadn't been for that meddling media!
[There are many legitimate grounds to criticise the media. Claiming they're totally pro-Tory and that's why the evil rightwingers win elections a lot is one-eyed nonsense].
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. The EU is a cult not a rational organisation.
When Melbourne gets cases NSW and SA close their borders so that there's no travel permitted between Melbourne and Sydney or Adelaide. You don't have the Federal PM screaming that borders must open to protect freedom of movement.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
I'm not sure who for though.
I can still see masks carrying on for a while - most likely on public transport - and they might return in some other circumstances and settings as the medics start to fret about Covid + Flu making a two-pronged attacked this Winter. But I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that, barring vaccine escape, which seems mercifully quite unlikely, nearly all of the Covid restrictions will be burnt once the Government feels reassured enough to complete the unlocking program.
So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
https://twitter.com/OfficialRandL/status/1364526936660336643
That's my interest in this, that we all learn from each other's best practices. The UK has got a lot of hard work to do and a lot to learn from best cases in Europe and APAC to ensure that we never have the same issues again and another ~150k people don't die unnecessarily. I think the EU commission and European governments have got a lot to learn from the UK's vaccine programme and scientific approach on the virus itself wrt sequencing and non-vaccine pharmaceutical trials in the NHS which has yielded three potentially lifesaving treatments and quite a few more candidates in P3 trials.
Alex Salmond to accept an invitation from the harassment committee to give evidence at Holyrood on Friday
Gavin Williamson to lead a Downing Street briefing this evening
That said re your post, the media may or may not be powerful because people buy or consume it. What I have noticed often, although have no analysis, is that Rupert backs the winner. He waits until it is reasonably clear who will be winning and then says - these people should win. Most noticeably he did it with the EURef.
And down my way, while much remains illegal - who you can have sex with, how many people can meet in a park, etc, buying the Socialist Worker or Living Marxism remains unprohibited.
All those left of centre media outlets need to do is to become popular and their views will also be heard more broadly.
Damn it!
Either that, or the voters pick up on the not-so-subtle hint that Labour holds them in contempt, and quietly put their tick in the box of the people who don't...
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1364239075461521414
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/culturally-diverse-crowds-blamed-for-seaside-litter-and-vandalism-mqzj2mmqg
Oooh Betty! Oooooooooh!
Take a look at this recent post for example... https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-dead-carrot-sketch/#more-123443
It is supremely consistent.
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date
Total 284,897 9,581 294,478
East Of England 30,999 1,596 32,595
London 47,124 1,251 48,375
Midlands 56,752 1,738 58,490
North East And Yorkshire 40,472 1,684 42,156
North West 32,797 580 33,377
South East 43,609 1,354 44,963
South West 31,455 1,362 32,817
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/science/johnson-johnson-vaccine-update.html
Meanwhile, a law professor writes:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/why-crown-office-has-become-lickspittle-arm-of-snp-government-alistair-bonnington-3144643
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfmrHTdXgK4
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
As Max has since confirmed he is in a position to know far more than you or I will probably ever know about vaccine supplies not just in the UK but around the world.
But you just carry on claiming its all about Brexit if it makes you feel better.
Twitter really is a swamp.