Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.
I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.
I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
FPT just to finish my point.
I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.
Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
Again without commenting on H&M, it is important to understand that the Royal Family is an institution that is very aware of its own history and place in society. It is why, if it is true and we don't know if it is, Charles might have declined to take a call from Harry who he might have deemed to be seeking to subvert the Royal Family's place.
Put simply, the Queen is very much aware that she is the Queen and the line of succession also. Hence it would be possible to see Charles as fiercely protective of that when dealing with potential disruptions, possibly even if that is your son.
Without understanding the status and perception of that status of the Royal Family it is very difficult to understand the behaviour we are seeing now.
Re: Charles my understanding was Harry was talking at great length but not being rigorous in his thinking. Charles asked him to put it in writing. Harry didn’t and called again... which Charles declined to take
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
That’s always my concern. But aren’t you a career changer?
Would it be useful to say that you have recently bought a house to stay in the area?
Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.
I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.
I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
FPT just to finish my point.
I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.
Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
Again without commenting on H&M, it is important to understand that the Royal Family is an institution that is very aware of its own history and place in society. It is why, if it is true and we don't know if it is, Charles might have declined to take a call from Harry who he might have deemed to be seeking to subvert the Royal Family's place.
Put simply, the Queen is very much aware that she is the Queen and the line of succession also. Hence it would be possible to see Charles as fiercely protective of that when dealing with potential disruptions, possibly even if that is your son.
Without understanding the status and perception of that status of the Royal Family it is very difficult to understand the behaviour we are seeing now.
Re: Charles my understanding was Harry was talking at great length but not being rigorous in his thinking. Charles asked him to put it in writing. Harry didn’t and called again... which Charles declined to take
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.
If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.
The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...
I very much appreciate your time and thoughts.
We once appointed a physics teacher whose CV included having run the Physics department at a reasonably good US university.
Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.
I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.
I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
FPT just to finish my point.
I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.
Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
Again without commenting on H&M, it is important to understand that the Royal Family is an institution that is very aware of its own history and place in society. It is why, if it is true and we don't know if it is, Charles might have declined to take a call from Harry who he might have deemed to be seeking to subvert the Royal Family's place.
Put simply, the Queen is very much aware that she is the Queen and the line of succession also. Hence it would be possible to see Charles as fiercely protective of that when dealing with potential disruptions, possibly even if that is your son.
Without understanding the status and perception of that status of the Royal Family it is very difficult to understand the behaviour we are seeing now.
Re: Charles my understanding was Harry was talking at great length but not being rigorous in his thinking. Charles asked him to put it in writing. Harry didn’t and called again... which Charles declined to take
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.
Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.
Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
In 2016 Labour got just 31%, in 2017 Labour got just 27%.
Every poll, even Yougov has Labour polling higher than that.
So Labour will still make gains from the LDs even on the 2016 numbers as well as the 2017 numbers, even if Labour only make gains from the Tories on the 2017 numbers in the county elections
As I said, on YouGov, Labour are LOSING seats to the Tories on 2017 numbers. It is a 1% swing from Labour to the Conservatives.
Now, YouGov is probably overly favourable tot he Tories. But set against that, you have weeks of voters being given the vaccine, shops reopening, meeting up with friends and family in small groups. If there is such a thing as post-Covid feelgood, it is likely to be kicking in about when we go to vote.
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
That’s always my concern. But aren’t you a career changer?
Yeah, I'm a career changer. Does that change things in your view?
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.
If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.
The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...
I very much appreciate your time and thoughts.
We once appointed a physics teacher whose CV included having run the Physics department at a reasonably good US university.
I hope they ended up being a good teacher! I guess teaching is a slightly different skill to running and managing a department?
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I find this fascination with Labour's past and its alleged "big hitters" very curious.
David Miliband isn't a big hitter. He lost to his geeky brother. Andy Burnham isn't a big hitter. He lost to Jeremy, badly. Ed Balls isn't a big hitter. He lost a fairly safe seat to a right-wing whack-job. These people aren't stars. They are has-beens, tired failures.
How did NZ Labour reinvent themselves in a matter of months and then grab power & maintain it in a stranglehold ?
They did not do it by looking to a mythical past of elderly big-hitters.
They found a small hitter, and they made her big.
It is Pep politics, not Jose. You improve your young players and make them stars.
And they're only counted as a positive if the PCR is positive, the LTF positive doesn't count it just screens before the PCR. So there need to be two positives to count as positive.
Utterly irresponsible reporting, a Statistical Society task force member should have known that.
EDIT: Oh she actually said that, but Talkradio chose not to put it on the Tweet. Guess it wasn't clickbaity enough.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about.
Given that the Campaign Group has 17% of Lab MPs (34 from 200), if someone can coral the left then yes, of course.
There are plenty of further-left-leaners who are not in the SCG.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.
Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.
Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
In 2016 Labour got just 31%, in 2017 Labour got just 27%.
Every poll, even Yougov has Labour polling higher than that.
So Labour will still make gains from the LDs even on the 2016 numbers as well as the 2017 numbers, even if Labour only make gains from the Tories on the 2017 numbers in the county elections
As I said, on YouGov, Labour are LOSING seats to the Tories on 2017 numbers. It is a 1% swing from Labour to the Conservatives.
Now, YouGov is probably overly favourable tot he Tories. But set against that, you have weeks of voters being given the vaccine, shops reopening, meeting up with friends and family in small groups. If there is such a thing as post-Covid feelgood, it is likely to be kicking in about when we go to vote.
Yougov is likely an outlier as the thread suggests, the latest Opinium for example has Labour on 36%.
Starmer is also more likely to get tactical votes from LD voters to beat the Tories in Labour v Tory marginal wards than Corbyn was.
In any case Labour will also still pick up seats from the LDs on 2016 and 2017, as will the Tories on the current polling.
Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.
I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.
I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
FPT just to finish my point.
I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.
Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
Again without commenting on H&M, it is important to understand that the Royal Family is an institution that is very aware of its own history and place in society. It is why, if it is true and we don't know if it is, Charles might have declined to take a call from Harry who he might have deemed to be seeking to subvert the Royal Family's place.
Put simply, the Queen is very much aware that she is the Queen and the line of succession also. Hence it would be possible to see Charles as fiercely protective of that when dealing with potential disruptions, possibly even if that is your son.
Without understanding the status and perception of that status of the Royal Family it is very difficult to understand the behaviour we are seeing now.
Re: Charles my understanding was Harry was talking at great length but not being rigorous in his thinking. Charles asked him to put it in writing. Harry didn’t and called again... which Charles declined to take
Fuck me, PB has its own Nicholas Witchell.
Much, MUCH better connected than Nicholas Witchell.
I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:
"Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."
I think it depends on how the public view the scandal. There was a palpable sense of threat to the monarchy in the first week of September 1997 (admittedly I was only 10 at the time, so others might remember it differently).
This doesn't feel anything like 1997. Perhaps the public perception of Meghan is unfair, but ultimately that's what matters in all of this. A politician would have to be absolutely stupid to try to use this episode to bring down the monarchy.
I don't see any threat at all as far as the H/M interview is concerned. I think there's a disconnect between how it's being reported - "shattering revelations rock the Royals!" - and the rather prosaic actual content, which was about as shocking as (insert something very non shocking). Perhaps I've become a jaded old so and so, but that's my honest take on it. After all the build up, very much a case of 'don't believe the hype'.
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
That’s always my concern. But aren’t you a career changer?
Yeah, I'm a career changer. Does that change things in your view?
If I might jump in as we're all experts giving you advice here (!).
If I was interviewing someone who is a "career changer" (you're making it sound like "alcoholic") then I would be very receptive. In my mind they may or may not be young enough to go and run the business eventually but I would appreciate that having been through one round of occupation they have come to the thing they "really" want to do and hence would be aware that there might be some proverbial tea-making despite the age.
I would want to hear that this person would bite my hand off for the opportunity and would perfectly understand that they would be judged with people much younger, but that they would also be expected to bring their previous experience to bear to guide others and apply to the intended job.
In other words, it's a delicate line between shoving it in their faces and denying it completely. Acknowledge your experience and also acknowledge that although you have that in your back pocket, you are "starting again".
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
There is little you can do about that other than be honest imho. If they are going to suspect you are ambitious enough to want to move up in two years time then make it a positive by weaving your ambition into the interview. Tell them you are looking for a firm that will support your future career. If they aren't interested in that then personally I would wonder what else they aren't interested in...
Don't forget: you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.
Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.
Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
In 2016 Labour got just 31%, in 2017 Labour got just 27%.
Every poll, even Yougov has Labour polling higher than that.
So Labour will still make gains from the LDs even on the 2016 numbers as well as the 2017 numbers, even if Labour only make gains from the Tories on the 2017 numbers in the county elections
As I said, on YouGov, Labour are LOSING seats to the Tories on 2017 numbers. It is a 1% swing from Labour to the Conservatives.
Now, YouGov is probably overly favourable tot he Tories. But set against that, you have weeks of voters being given the vaccine, shops reopening, meeting up with friends and family in small groups. If there is such a thing as post-Covid feelgood, it is likely to be kicking in about when we go to vote.
Yougov is likely an outlier as the thread suggests, the latest Opinium for example has Labour on 36%.
Starmer is also more likely to get tactical votes from LD voters to beat the Tories in Labour v Tory marginal wards than Corbyn was.
In any case Labour will also still pick up seats from the LDs on 2016 and 2017, as will the Tories on the current polling.
The LDs got 18% in 2017 and 15% in 2016
I live in a mythical Lib Dem - Labour marginal for the local council.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I find this fascination with Labour's past and its alleged "big hitters" very curious.
David Miliband isn't a big hitter. He lost to his geeky brother. Andy Burnham isn't a big hitter. He lost to Jeremy, badly. Ed Balls isn't a big hitter. He lost a fairly safe seat to a right-wing whack-job. These people aren't stars. They are has-beens, tired failures.
How did NZ Labour reinvent themselves in a matter of months and then grab power & maintain it in a stranglehold ?
They did not do it by looking to a mythical past of elderly big-hitters.
They found a small hitter, and they made her big.
It is Pep politics, not Jose. You improve your young players and make them stars.
Labour did not win a majority or even most votes in New Zealand until last year however.
In 2017 Ardern scraped in having got a 7% lower voteshare and 10 fewer seats than the Nationals through backroom deals with the Greens and NZ First in a hung parliament.
Labour would likely have to do similar with the Greens, LDs and SNP
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
That’s always my concern. But aren’t you a career changer?
Yeah, I'm a career changer. Does that change things in your view?
If I might jump in as we're all experts giving you advice here (!).
If I was interviewing someone who is a "career changer" (you're making it sound like "alcoholic") then I would be very receptive. In my mind they may or may not be young enough to go and run the business eventually but I would appreciate that having been through one round of occupation they have come to the thing they "really" want to do and hence would be aware that there might be some proverbial tea-making despite the age.
I would want to hear that this person would bite my hand off for the opportunity and would perfectly understand that they would be judged with people much younger, but that they would also be expected to bring their previous experience to bear to guide others and apply to the intended job.
In other words, it's a delicate line between shoving it in their faces and denying it completely. Acknowledge your experience and also acknowledge that although you have that in your back pocket, you are "starting again".
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.
If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.
The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...
I very much appreciate your time and thoughts.
We once appointed a physics teacher whose CV included having run the Physics department at a reasonably good US university.
I hope they ended up being a good teacher! I guess teaching is a slightly different skill to running and managing a department?
He did have to be persuaded not to try to teach quantum mechanics to Y7, but yes, he was a good teacher.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.
Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.
Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
In 2016 Labour got just 31%, in 2017 Labour got just 27%.
Every poll, even Yougov has Labour polling higher than that.
So Labour will still make gains from the LDs even on the 2016 numbers as well as the 2017 numbers, even if Labour only make gains from the Tories on the 2017 numbers in the county elections
As I said, on YouGov, Labour are LOSING seats to the Tories on 2017 numbers. It is a 1% swing from Labour to the Conservatives.
Now, YouGov is probably overly favourable tot he Tories. But set against that, you have weeks of voters being given the vaccine, shops reopening, meeting up with friends and family in small groups. If there is such a thing as post-Covid feelgood, it is likely to be kicking in about when we go to vote.
Yougov is likely an outlier as the thread suggests, the latest Opinium for example has Labour on 36%.
Starmer is also more likely to get tactical votes from LD voters to beat the Tories in Labour v Tory marginal wards than Corbyn was.
In any case Labour will also still pick up seats from the LDs on 2016 and 2017, as will the Tories on the current polling.
The LDs got 18% in 2017 and 15% in 2016
I live in a mythical Lib Dem - Labour marginal for the local council.
In areas like Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge that have elections this year there are quite a lot of them
I don't get this trend, which seems more prevalent recently but maybe that's my imagination, of giving something a name which is very easily misinterpretable, even not by opponents, and then having to spend your time explaining it doesn't mean what it seems like it means. Butler at least wasn't huffily defensive about it like the Defund the Police people.
If the party thinks Unionism is an integral part of their offer then of course they would, eventually, even if it was a shrinking pool. Becoming Sindy supporters in order to get more support would be an odd choice if they wish to be explicitly a Unionist party (even though plenty of their voters are likely already Sindy supporters).
What seems more questionable is action against people who think there should be another referendum, which will not exclusively be Sindy supporters anyway.
Claims of outliers on pb.com are very much more common than actual outliers, which should be very rare.
How many polls are there in a non-election year? Maybe one a week, or so.
Then assuming a Gaussian distribution with a σ of say 2 %, we can expect to be out by 3 σ or +/- 6 % about once every 7 years.
That is how unlikely an outlier of this magnitude is.
It feels right to me, I'm afraid. And tbh no shock at all. Landslide quite recently. The one key pledge - Leave - implemented. Pandemic beaten before anyone else due to vaccine triumph. EU screwing up big time and making Brexit look wise. "Boris" colonizing everyone's head space and altering the template of what a PM should look and feel like. And nobody with the remotest interest in hearing anything from Labour, who are thus reduced to trying not to irritate. The only surprise is that the Con lead is not bigger.
I hope to see the polls tighten once things have normalized in a few months.
What if what you've just described is the 'new normal'?
Afterall it was the prepandemic normal too.
That would be unfortunate. But I doubt it is. Just before the pandemic was right after the "BBC" election - the one won on a Boris, Brexit, Corbyn basis. Two of those will not be a factor next time and the one left - Johnson - will be starting to irritate many who voted for him in the likely absence of any tangible benefits from his period in office.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I find this fascination with Labour's past and its alleged "big hitters" very curious.
David Miliband isn't a big hitter. He lost to his geeky brother. Andy Burnham isn't a big hitter. He lost to Jeremy, badly. Ed Balls isn't a big hitter. He lost a fairly safe seat to a right-wing whack-job. These people aren't stars. They are has-beens, tired failures.
How did NZ Labour reinvent themselves in a matter of months and then grab power & maintain it in a stranglehold ?
They did not do it by looking to a mythical past of elderly big-hitters.
They found a small hitter, and they made her big.
It is Pep politics, not Jose. You improve your young players and make them stars.
Labour did not win a majority or even most votes in New Zealand until last year however.
In 2017 Ardern scraped in having got a 7% lower voteshare and 10 fewer seats than the Nationals through backroom deals with the Greens and NZ First in a hung parliament.
Labour would likely have to do similar with the Greens, LDs and SNP
What I think is interesting is that there is no sign of Labour peeling off the centrist Tory voters - despite the Conservative Party presenting further to the right than at any time since I was a youngster. And that suggests that Labour just aren't a credible place to go, yet.
I don't think anyone realistically believes Johnson is 13% ahead, but it does support his party being 6 or 7% ahead. I think that alone should have Starmer worried, as it would out Johnson back in Number 10.
The locals in May are not so far off. That's surely got to be Starmer's main concern. A 13% loss there would be very bad - I presume there are more than usual too as it has the ones postponed from last year.
He'll surely face a challenge in the run-up to the conference season were all that to happen.
It's a shame BF don't have a Starmer exit market.
2017 was a really good locals for the Tories as I recall, so they have a lot of room to manage expectations and can lose quite a lot without it being a 'terrible' night, but even managing their own expectations Labour should be doing well.
I have been curious what the thoughts are on the competitive mayoralties, as winning some of those from the Tories would be a good way of diisguising things if it was not a great Labour night elsewhere.
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
That’s always my concern. But aren’t you a career changer?
Not if you convince them you've now found your real passion.
All of that funny money Biden is printing is going to end up somewhere, why not a property bubble?
Why not, indeed. The stimulus package does represent something of a gamble. The next year or so will be very interesting.
By directing it at consumers the money is more likely to end up in consumption rather than asset inflation.
The previous approach of directing the money through the banks using QE results in investors piling in to borrow at very low interest rates and investing in capital assets.
Biden's approach should boost consumer demand in the economy which is what is needed.
I am in favour of the stimulus, on balance - but it would be foolish to pretend that there is no risk involved.
I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:
"Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."
I think it depends on how the public view the scandal. There was a palpable sense of threat to the monarchy in the first week of September 1997 (admittedly I was only 10 at the time, so others might remember it differently).
This doesn't feel anything like 1997. Perhaps the public perception of Meghan is unfair, but ultimately that's what matters in all of this. A politician would have to be absolutely stupid to try to use this episode to bring down the monarchy.
I don't see any threat at all as far as the H/M interview is concerned. I think there's a disconnect between how it's being reported - "shattering revelations rock the Royals!" - and the rather prosaic actual content, which was about as shocking as (insert something very non shocking). Perhaps I've become a jaded old so and so, but that's my honest take on it. After all the build up, very much a case of 'don't believe the hype'.
Needs a bit more meat on the bone to rock things in the UK, beyond those getting overexcited and immediately leaping to child Queen making Nazi salute comparisons (apologies to TSE).
I mean, it was on an american network, by the Queen of America, and seemed very well structured to appeal more to americans, so it probably worked on its intended audience.
Why is Whitty not challenged with evidence from America that the link between covid and lockdown is not what he and the rest of the SAGE committee manifestly assume it is? ie a thermostatic central heating link?
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
Thomas-Symonds strikes me as by far the most competent and capable and intelligent Shadow Cabinet member and could be in with a shout eventually.
He is also Welsh born and raised rather than coming from North London
SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than necessary.
Sounds sensible. It's a sledgehammer, and it works, but it causes a lot of additional damage.
I'm sorry but the evidence from the US challenges the notion that it works in the way its proponents say it does. Which may be why so many states are there are now opening up fully. Lockdown is in retreat.
What's certain is that it is a sledgehammer and it causes huge additional damage.
Why is Whitty not challenged with evidence from America that the link between covid and lockdown is not what he and the rest of the SAGE committee manifestly assume it is? ie a thermostatic central heating link?
Or on the models. Why did they get Sweden so utterly wrong if the model is an accurate reflection of real life?
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
Thomas-Symonds strikes me as by far the most competent and capable and intelligent Shadow Cabinet member and could be in with a shout eventually.
He is also Welsh born and raised rather than coming from North London
I don't particularly disagree, but as I said in my post I'm of the strong view that Labour's next leader will be female.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I find this fascination with Labour's past and its alleged "big hitters" very curious.
David Miliband isn't a big hitter. He lost to his geeky brother. Andy Burnham isn't a big hitter. He lost to Jeremy, badly. Ed Balls isn't a big hitter. He lost a fairly safe seat to a right-wing whack-job. These people aren't stars. They are has-beens, tired failures.
How did NZ Labour reinvent themselves in a matter of months and then grab power & maintain it in a stranglehold ?
They did not do it by looking to a mythical past of elderly big-hitters.
They found a small hitter, and they made her big.
It is Pep politics, not Jose. You improve your young players and make them stars.
Labour did not win a majority or even most votes in New Zealand until last year however.
In 2017 Ardern scraped in having got a 7% lower voteshare and 10 fewer seats than the Nationals through backroom deals with the Greens and NZ First in a hung parliament.
Labour would likely have to do similar with the Greens, LDs and SNP
What I think is interesting is that there is no sign of Labour peeling off the centrist Tory voters - despite the Conservative Party presenting further to the right than at any time since I was a youngster. And that suggests that Labour just aren't a credible place to go, yet.
The thing is other than on Brexit this government is not that rightwing, on economics it is even left of the 2010-2015 Coalition
There are other methods where no over-feeding is involved.
The animals don't seem to object at all, if it is kind it should be legal in this country.
If its illegal in this country, it should be illegal to import too.
One or the other.
I agree on that.
I think there is a bit of an obsession about 'returning to natural husbandry' which is like the 'what was it like before humans' obsession that comes from some rewilding people.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
No reason why it would be a female. The membership have continually rejected them.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
Thomas-Symonds strikes me as by far the most competent and capable and intelligent Shadow Cabinet member and could be in with a shout eventually.
He is also Welsh born and raised rather than coming from North London
I don't particularly disagree, but as I said in my post I'm of the strong view that Labour's next leader will be female.
Yes, it is getting a little bit embarrassing that the Woke Party could equally well be termed the Sausage Party. Or perhaps the Patriparty?
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
Thomas-Symonds strikes me as by far the most competent and capable and intelligent Shadow Cabinet member and could be in with a shout eventually.
He is also Welsh born and raised rather than coming from North London
Why is Whitty not challenged with evidence from America that the link between covid and lockdown is not what he and the rest of the SAGE committee manifestly assume it is? ie a thermostatic central heating link?
Or on the models. Why did they get Sweden so utterly wrong if the model is an accurate reflection of real life?
Fauci told Noem her policy would seen thousands of daily hospitalisations in South Dakota. They peaked at six hundred.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
Someone drew a graph of the maximum number of potential deaths remaining assuming a particular vaccine efficacy, which I thought was quite a good way to present the figures. I'll see if I can find it (or even draw one myself if I can find the time).
There are definitely enough vulnerable people out there if this continues to spread in the unvaccinated, under 18s, and the unlucky 10% whose vaccine didn't work well enough.
To be fair, I don't think Whitty was saying we should lock down again, he was saying that it was likely to happen and that the government will have to decide what to do about it (if anything).
SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than necessary.
Sounds sensible. It's a sledgehammer, and it works, but it causes a lot of additional damage.
I'm sorry but the evidence from the US challenges the notion that it works in the way its proponents say it does. Which may be why so many states are there are now opening up fully. Lockdown is in retreat.
What's certain is that it is a sledgehammer and it causes huge additional damage.
Many states are fully open because well it's the States and freedom trumps everything else.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
We would very much like to hear right now from the very many posters on here who have defended the medics and SAGE to the hilt
As Whitty tries to completely stymie and even reverse their aspirations towards a quicker release from lockdown, will they still leap to his defence?
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
Sorry, I see you have made the same point. Yes, exactly. I'm not sure what value this intervention from Whitty adds, if any. What's his point?
The UK numbers clear show the vaccines work. The Europeans have to get a move on, but we knew that.
SLAB deciding that they don’t want the votes of ex SLAB voters thinking of switching back from the SNP.
Quite right, they won't get them anyway, they are far more likely to get Tory and LD tactical voters to beat the SNP given the SNP are now polling below 50% again
SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than necessary.
Sounds sensible. It's a sledgehammer, and it works, but it causes a lot of additional damage.
I'm sorry but the evidence from the US challenges the notion that it works in the way its proponents say it does. Which may be why so many states are there are now opening up fully. Lockdown is in retreat.
What's certain is that it is a sledgehammer and it causes huge additional damage.
Many states are fully open because well it's the States and freedom trumps everything else.
I disagree. Its because the experiences of Florida and South Dakota (and indeed the terrible experiences of the states that HAVE locked down) have driven a coach and horses through the policy of Whitty, Vallance and Johnson. I
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
We have about 22 million first vaccinations out of a population of 67 million. Of whom 54 million are over 16 and eligible for vaccination.
So we are about 20% through the job of vaccinating the eligible population.
Until that is done, a relaxation of measures *will* lead to an increase in cases.
The question is how bad that will be. Once everyone down to 40 (say) is given a first vaccination, the resulting hospital load may be manageable. But it will still result in a lot of damage.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
We would very much like to hear right now from the very many posters on here who have defended the medics and SAGE to the hilt
As Whitty tries to completely stymie and even reverse their aspirations towards a quicker release from lockdown, will they still leap to his defence?
Its all gone a bit quiet.
This isn't rocket science. We still have a large adult population under 60 who are almost entirely unvaccinated. The evidence we have suggests that if we open up too quickly (ie before some (presumably large) proportion of them are protected), the case rate will skyrocket, again, and enough of them will end up in hospital to overwhelm the health services. Therefore, we stay as we are for a few more months until we're confident. Then, open things up as per the roadmap.
If the party thinks Unionism is an integral part of their offer then of course they would, eventually, even if it was a shrinking pool. Becoming Sindy supporters in order to get more support would be an odd choice if they wish to be explicitly a Unionist party (even though plenty of their voters are likely already Sindy supporters).
What seems more questionable is action against people who think there should be another referendum, which will not exclusively be Sindy supporters anyway.
The mistake is to think there are ‘Unionist’ and ‘Nationalist’ voters with nothing in between. I’d say there are at least 30%-ish of voters who would describe themselves as neither, and all parties with a chance of getting msps should be knocking their pans in to attract them (SCons excepted as they’re about as capable of nuance as Bernard Manning on Angel Dust). SLab should try and at least try and come up with an ‘exciting’ new offer on devolution before dumping candidates just because they’re open to Indy ref II; it might at least keep the third of their voters who support such a ref and would think of voting yes on board a bit longer.
Someone drew a graph of the maximum number of potential deaths remaining assuming a particular vaccine efficacy, which I thought was quite a good way to present the figures. I'll see if I can find it (or even draw one myself if I can find the time).
There are definitely enough vulnerable people out there if this continues to spread in the unvaccinated, under 18s, and the unlucky 10% whose vaccine didn't work well enough.
To be fair, I don't think Whitty was saying we should lock down again, he was saying that it was likely to happen and that the government will have to decide what to do about it (if anything).
The either he (possible) or the media (probable) have presented his views in a mangled fashion. The only substance to his intervention seems to be: "well look at continental Europe, this is what happens when your vax programme is a pile of shite, see!"
Well yes, Chris, but we knew that already old chap.
SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than necessary.
Sounds sensible. It's a sledgehammer, and it works, but it causes a lot of additional damage.
I'm sorry but the evidence from the US challenges the notion that it works in the way its proponents say it does. Which may be why so many states are there are now opening up fully. Lockdown is in retreat.
What's certain is that it is a sledgehammer and it causes huge additional damage.
Many states are fully open because well it's the States and freedom trumps everything else.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
Sorry, I see you have made the same point. Yes, exactly. I'm not sure what value this intervention from Whitty adds, if any. What's his point?
The UK numbers clear show the vaccines work. The Europeans have to get a move on, but we knew that.
So what?
Take it from me, you can be crucified on here for even suggesting that SAGE have any sort of motives that are not the highest and most holy.
The fact is, the stakes of the lockdown policy are enormous. Huge. Career threatening. Consider the implications if you are wrong.
SLAB deciding that they don’t want the votes of ex SLAB voters thinking of switching back from the SNP.
Quite right, they won't get them anyway, they are far more likely to get Tory and LD tactical voters to beat the SNP given the SNP are now polling below 50% again
Surely if the SNP are polling below 50% then their lost votes have to go somewhere, unless they’re all abstaining. Why not to SLAB? Not everything in Scotland is about independence. Other policies count as well. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the unionist parties all combine into one party?
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.
If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.
The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...
I very much appreciate your time and thoughts.
If I was reading your CV, I would be interested in the transferrable soft skills - experienced in dealing with clients, used to working in a team to meet deadlines, confident, organised, etc. I'd also want to understand why you decided to change career, but cover that in an interview.
I guess the consensus is not to under-sell myself.
Cheers everyone. On I go...
I'd just add that honesty might be valuable here.
Explain your thinking about taking the position now, and about how you are not out to hoodwink the firm, but ideally think that this approach will give you a broader skill set and deeper understanding of the entire scope of the firm's operations so that when you progress to that other, higher position, you'll be of greater value to the firm than if you had not taken this route.
Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
No. Play it up for all you can.
The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.
If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.
The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...
I very much appreciate your time and thoughts.
If I was reading your CV, I would be interested in the transferrable soft skills - experienced in dealing with clients, used to working in a team to meet deadlines, confident, organised, etc. I'd also want to understand why you decided to change career, but cover that in an interview.
I guess the consensus is not to under-sell myself.
Cheers everyone. On I go...
I'd just add that honesty might be valuable here.
Explain your thinking about taking the position now, and about how you are not out to hoodwink the firm, but ideally think that this approach will give you a broader skill set and deeper understanding of the entire scope of the firm's operations so that when you progress to that other, higher position, you'll be of greater value to the firm than if you had not taken this route.
Thanks Tim (and everyone else). You've all provided me with very valuable advice and I have all your comments saved to refer back to later.
PB is very much HelpGallowgateGetAJob.com today and I appreciate it.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I find this fascination with Labour's past and its alleged "big hitters" very curious.
David Miliband isn't a big hitter. He lost to his geeky brother. Andy Burnham isn't a big hitter. He lost to Jeremy, badly. Ed Balls isn't a big hitter. He lost a fairly safe seat to a right-wing whack-job. These people aren't stars. They are has-beens, tired failures.
How did NZ Labour reinvent themselves in a matter of months and then grab power & maintain it in a stranglehold ?
They did not do it by looking to a mythical past of elderly big-hitters.
They found a small hitter, and they made her big.
It is Pep politics, not Jose. You improve your young players and make them stars.
Labour did not win a majority or even most votes in New Zealand until last year however.
In 2017 Ardern scraped in having got a 7% lower voteshare and 10 fewer seats than the Nationals through backroom deals with the Greens and NZ First in a hung parliament.
Labour would likely have to do similar with the Greens, LDs and SNP
What I think is interesting is that there is no sign of Labour peeling off the centrist Tory voters - despite the Conservative Party presenting further to the right than at any time since I was a youngster. And that suggests that Labour just aren't a credible place to go, yet.
The thing is other than on Brexit this government is not that rightwing, on economics it is even left of the 2010-2015 Coalition
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
We would very much like to hear right now from the very many posters on here who have defended the medics and SAGE to the hilt
As Whitty tries to completely stymie and even reverse their aspirations towards a quicker release from lockdown, will they still leap to his defence?
Its all gone a bit quiet.
This isn't rocket science. We still have a large adult population under 60 who are almost entirely unvaccinated. The evidence we have suggests that if we open up too quickly (ie before some (presumably large) proportion of them are protected), the case rate will skyrocket, again, and enough of them will end up in hospital to overwhelm the health services. Therefore, we stay as we are for a few more months until we're confident. Then, open things up as per the roadmap.
There is no hard evidence of that whatsoever. None. That is supposition.
There is, however, plenty of evidence that a policy of targeted protections, trusting your citizens and keeping one's economy open does a similar job of controlling spread, but f8cks your economy and your citizens much less. Hard evidence. from areas of different climates. Carried out over winter.
Why is Whitty not challenged with evidence from America that the link between covid and lockdown is not what he and the rest of the SAGE committee manifestly assume it is? ie a thermostatic central heating link?
There's no pretence that lockdown grants fine-tuning control of the virus. It's directional only. Nothing more is claimed. Hence "data not dates" and all the rest of it.
Someone drew a graph of the maximum number of potential deaths remaining assuming a particular vaccine efficacy, which I thought was quite a good way to present the figures. I'll see if I can find it (or even draw one myself if I can find the time).
There are definitely enough vulnerable people out there if this continues to spread in the unvaccinated, under 18s, and the unlucky 10% whose vaccine didn't work well enough.
To be fair, I don't think Whitty was saying we should lock down again, he was saying that it was likely to happen and that the government will have to decide what to do about it (if anything).
The either he (possible) or the media (probable) have presented his views in a mangled fashion. The only substance to his intervention seems to be: "well look at continental Europe, this is what happens when your vax programme is a pile of shite, see!"
Well yes, Chris, but we knew that already old chap.
You would have to be a genius of stupidity to think that Whitty wasn't talking about the UK, and that he isn't expecting a third wave. And expecting deaths among the unvaccinated and - sadly - among some of the vaccinated too. I'm not sure how he could have made that any clearer, without tattooing it on the inside of the eyelids of the terminally stupid.
Someone drew a graph of the maximum number of potential deaths remaining assuming a particular vaccine efficacy, which I thought was quite a good way to present the figures. I'll see if I can find it (or even draw one myself if I can find the time).
There are definitely enough vulnerable people out there if this continues to spread in the unvaccinated, under 18s, and the unlucky 10% whose vaccine didn't work well enough.
To be fair, I don't think Whitty was saying we should lock down again, he was saying that it was likely to happen and that the government will have to decide what to do about it (if anything).
The either he (possible) or the media (probable) have presented his views in a mangled fashion. The only substance to his intervention seems to be: "well look at continental Europe, this is what happens when your vax programme is a pile of shite, see!"
Well yes, Chris, but we knew that already old chap.
I think it's more a case of if we go "Awesome - lets have nonstop raves and parties *now*" then we will have a large number of cases quite soon.
The massive falls in the UK are the vaccinations + the lockdown.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
Sorry, I see you have made the same point. Yes, exactly. I'm not sure what value this intervention from Whitty adds, if any. What's his point?
The UK numbers clear show the vaccines work. The Europeans have to get a move on, but we knew that.
So what?
Take it from me, you can be crucified on here for even suggesting that SAGE have any sort of motives that are not the highest and most holy.
The fact is, the stakes of the lockdown policy are enormous. Huge. Career threatening. Consider the implications if you are wrong.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
We would very much like to hear right now from the very many posters on here who have defended the medics and SAGE to the hilt
As Whitty tries to completely stymie and even reverse their aspirations towards a quicker release from lockdown, will they still leap to his defence?
Its all gone a bit quiet.
This isn't rocket science. We still have a large adult population under 60 who are almost entirely unvaccinated. The evidence we have suggests that if we open up too quickly (ie before some (presumably large) proportion of them are protected), the case rate will skyrocket, again, and enough of them will end up in hospital to overwhelm the health services. Therefore, we stay as we are for a few more months until we're confident. Then, open things up as per the roadmap.
There is no hard evidence of that whatsoever. None. That is supposition.
There is, however, plenty of evidence that a policy of targeted protections, trusting your citizens and keeping one's economy open does a similar job of controlling spread, but f8cks your economy and your citizens much less. Hard evidence. from areas of different climates. Carried out over winter.
I note the Conservatives have lost their majority on Oxfordshire County Council. A sitting Con councillor has gone Independent (in OCC terms, that's an Independent Independent, of whom there are now 4, rather than a Conservative-allied Independent, of whom there are 3).
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
I guess there must be a fear that the longer the virus runs rampant in many nearby nations the greater the chance of a vaccine resistant mutant emerging. Europe needs to get moving. Here in Spain they remain wedded to the 2 dose strategy and have still to allow AZN to the over 55's. On the most optimistic forecasts we are looking at maybe 70% vaccinated by July. The British variant is now spreading rapidly here and a lethal 4th wave remains very possible.
These countries aren't vaccinating at anything like our rate. What was the point of all the work done on vaccine and ultra rapid clinical trial and emergency speed delivery, if Whitty then starts saying 'look at countries which haven't done that - their case numbers are warning'?
A warning of what?
We would very much like to hear right now from the very many posters on here who have defended the medics and SAGE to the hilt
As Whitty tries to completely stymie and even reverse their aspirations towards a quicker release from lockdown, will they still leap to his defence?
Its all gone a bit quiet.
This isn't rocket science. We still have a large adult population under 60 who are almost entirely unvaccinated. The evidence we have suggests that if we open up too quickly (ie before some (presumably large) proportion of them are protected), the case rate will skyrocket, again, and enough of them will end up in hospital to overwhelm the health services. Therefore, we stay as we are for a few more months until we're confident. Then, open things up as per the roadmap.
There is no hard evidence of that whatsoever. None. That is supposition.
There is, however, plenty of evidence that a policy of targeted protections, trusting your citizens and keeping one's economy open does a similar job of controlling spread, but f8cks your economy and your citizens much less. Hard evidence. from areas of different climates. Carried out over winter.
The UK locked down last March/April, and deaths plummeted (after a few weeks delay).
Then we opened up in the autumn, and cases/deaths skyrocketed.
Then we locked down again, and they decreased again.
Except for one blip over Christmas, where mixed messaging was directly linked to a spike in cases, and subsequently deaths.
How much more evidence do you need? Do NOT mention South Dakota, or I will be very cross.
If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?
In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.
Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.
The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.
Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham would go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).
It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.
I think the general mood of the membership is disappointment that the polls are poor and that Starmer hasn't set out a detailed agenda yet, but a degree of acceptance of solid reasons for both. I know literally nobody who is arguing for a leadership challenge, and I have friends ranging from solidly Blairite to super-Corbynite. I'll be surprised if there's a challenge before 2023.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
Yes, that's my take as well. There is absolutely no appetite for a leadership contest from any faction, and Starmer is safe for at least 18 months, regardless of the local election results. It's only the Tories on here who see any real threat to Starmer, isn't it? Plus maybe a couple of Corbynites.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
Thomas-Symonds strikes me as by far the most competent and capable and intelligent Shadow Cabinet member and could be in with a shout eventually.
He is also Welsh born and raised rather than coming from North London
I don't particularly disagree, but as I said in my post I'm of the strong view that Labour's next leader will be female.
Comments
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1369209060600516608
Now, YouGov is probably overly favourable tot he Tories. But set against that, you have weeks of voters being given the vaccine, shops reopening, meeting up with friends and family in small groups. If there is such a thing as post-Covid feelgood, it is likely to be kicking in about when we go to vote.
If we did eventually change, I think Burnham would be in with a shot if he'd found his way back to Parliament, but Rayner would be favourite at the moment. Ashworth has a reasonably high profile, as does Clive Lewis and of course John McDonnell (but he doesn't want it). It's a mistake to think that middle-class Labour voters dislike feisty northerners - we don't vote Labour in the hope of only electing people like us.
David Miliband isn't a big hitter. He lost to his geeky brother. Andy Burnham isn't a big hitter. He lost to Jeremy, badly.
Ed Balls isn't a big hitter. He lost a fairly safe seat to a right-wing whack-job. These people aren't stars. They are has-beens, tired failures.
How did NZ Labour reinvent themselves in a matter of months and then grab power & maintain it in a stranglehold ?
They did not do it by looking to a mythical past of elderly big-hitters.
They found a small hitter, and they made her big.
It is Pep politics, not Jose. You improve your young players and make them stars.
Utterly irresponsible reporting, a Statistical Society task force member should have known that.
EDIT: Oh she actually said that, but Talkradio chose not to put it on the Tweet. Guess it wasn't clickbaity enough.
There are plenty of further-left-leaners who are not in the SCG.
Starmer is also more likely to get tactical votes from LD voters to beat the Tories in Labour v Tory marginal wards than Corbyn was.
In any case Labour will also still pick up seats from the LDs on 2016 and 2017, as will the Tories on the current polling.
The LDs got 18% in 2017 and 15% in 2016
If I was interviewing someone who is a "career changer" (you're making it sound like "alcoholic") then I would be very receptive. In my mind they may or may not be young enough to go and run the business eventually but I would appreciate that having been through one round of occupation they have come to the thing they "really" want to do and hence would be aware that there might be some proverbial tea-making despite the age.
I would want to hear that this person would bite my hand off for the opportunity and would perfectly understand that they would be judged with people much younger, but that they would also be expected to bring their previous experience to bear to guide others and apply to the intended job.
In other words, it's a delicate line between shoving it in their faces and denying it completely. Acknowledge your experience and also acknowledge that although you have that in your back pocket, you are "starting again".
Don't forget: you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.
In 2017 Ardern scraped in having got a 7% lower voteshare and 10 fewer seats than the Nationals through backroom deals with the Greens and NZ First in a hung parliament.
Labour would likely have to do similar with the Greens, LDs and SNP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQzH58WJt0Y
There are other methods where no over-feeding is involved.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
If its illegal in this country, it should be illegal to import too.
One or the other.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369265957764489216?s=20
What seems more questionable is action against people who think there should be another referendum, which will not exclusively be Sindy supporters anyway.
I have been curious what the thoughts are on the competitive mayoralties, as winning some of those from the Tories would be a good way of diisguising things if it was not a great Labour night elsewhere.
I mean, it was on an american network, by the Queen of America, and seemed very well structured to appeal more to americans, so it probably worked on its intended audience.
If/when Starmer does go, his replacement will be female I think. You don't mention Nandy - I think she has a better chance than Rayner. A long-term shot is Bridget Phillipson: north-east MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather able and could, I think, go down well with the public if given the opportunity.
He is also Welsh born and raised rather than coming from North London
What's certain is that it is a sledgehammer and it causes huge additional damage.
And the "positivity" rates are in much worse:
I think there is a bit of an obsession about 'returning to natural husbandry' which is like the 'what was it like before humans' obsession that comes from some rewilding people.
We cannot go on like this.
A warning of what?
There are definitely enough vulnerable people out there if this continues to spread in the unvaccinated, under 18s, and the unlucky 10% whose vaccine didn't work well enough.
To be fair, I don't think Whitty was saying we should lock down again, he was saying that it was likely to happen and that the government will have to decide what to do about it (if anything).
As Whitty tries to completely stymie and even reverse their aspirations towards a quicker release from lockdown, will they still leap to his defence?
Its all gone a bit quiet.
The UK numbers clear show the vaccines work. The Europeans have to get a move on, but we knew that.
So what?
I
The government has made its thoughts fairly clear, as there is a tender out for up to £8bn of lateral flow tests over the next twelve months.
https://find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/004511-2021
Compared with £4bn for PCR over the next four years.
https://find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/004622-2021
So we are about 20% through the job of vaccinating the eligible population.
Until that is done, a relaxation of measures *will* lead to an increase in cases.
The question is how bad that will be. Once everyone down to 40 (say) is given a first vaccination, the resulting hospital load may be manageable. But it will still result in a lot of damage.
Well yes, Chris, but we knew that already old chap.
The fact is, the stakes of the lockdown policy are enormous. Huge. Career threatening. Consider the implications if you are wrong.
I guess we'll now have a shortage of sports coaches.
Explain your thinking about taking the position now, and about how you are not out to hoodwink the firm, but ideally think that this approach will give you a broader skill set and deeper understanding of the entire scope of the firm's operations so that when you progress to that other, higher position, you'll be of greater value to the firm than if you had not taken this route.
PB is very much HelpGallowgateGetAJob.com today and I appreciate it.
There is, however, plenty of evidence that a policy of targeted protections, trusting your citizens and keeping one's economy open does a similar job of controlling spread, but f8cks your economy and your citizens much less. Hard evidence. from areas of different climates. Carried out over winter.
Not absolutely clear on the implcation, but interesting...
https://twitter.com/AdamHolesch/status/1369237448778280963
The massive falls in the UK are the vaccinations + the lockdown.
https://twitter.com/liamcsc/status/1368675223042670597?s=21
I note the Conservatives have lost their majority on Oxfordshire County Council. A sitting Con councillor has gone Independent (in OCC terms, that's an Independent Independent, of whom there are now 4, rather than a Conservative-allied Independent, of whom there are 3).
Then we opened up in the autumn, and cases/deaths skyrocketed.
Then we locked down again, and they decreased again.
Except for one blip over Christmas, where mixed messaging was directly linked to a spike in cases, and subsequently deaths.
How much more evidence do you need? Do NOT mention South Dakota, or I will be very cross.
Progress then.....