Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Is he well thought of?
The brutal reality with Keir that is revealed by looking at Gross rather than Net figures is that Keir isn't well thought of, he isn't badly thought of . . . he's simply not thought of.
I had to google what a Friend of Dorothy is. Is that an accurate translation?
Google Translate gives:
"We will not cover the glaze with AstraZeneca, as no connection with the duster is justified."
Sunil, see below. That is from Czech. From Polish it gives a good, sensical translation. So, I think the twitter is wrong on nationality of the original source, and has used an extremely loose translation approach.
Old Holborn is a right wing muckraker who was banned from Guido for being too close to the knuckle
I'm all in favour of Brexit, but what sort of life do you lead where it's the single most important decision in it?
If Dan H had said - of if he meant - political decision, then he's right.
Clearly deciding to have babies, get married, move to Greenland, change gender AGAIN will be more important to any person, on a human, emotional level.
But for a Brit, voting for Leave would have been the biggest, most important political choice they have made, and will ever make. And it happened. So it's not that ridiculous a statement
I assume for a Scot that would be the second biggest, most important political choice they have made, only to have that choice ignored. Third time lucky..
Dunno. Belgium has the 2nd highest Covid death toll in the world. Their minds will be laser-focused on killing the bug, at all cost.
The country with the very highest toll? Czechia. And they have ALSO said We still want Astra-Zeneca.
The country with the fourth highest toll (ignoring micro-nations) is the UK.
There is, perhaps, a very rough correlation between getting brutally shagged by Covid and then having a clear-headed, logical approach to it afterwards. See also Hungary - going for Sputnik and now vaxxing like mad, it's just after the UK on the list.
Italy is the outlier. Terrible death toll, still making bad decisions
Some countries are going to come out looking rather smarter than others.
What on earth would they actually do if they had to make the AZ suspension anything more than a relatively brief pause? This is the one thing that makes me think this is linked to supply issues. Especially in countries giving it to older people (maybe those not doing reason that it won't make much difference). Because they have given people first doses - are they going to prevent them having second ones? Maybe they also think that the evidence on AZ second doses gives them time - they wouldn't dare do the same with Pfizer and its mandated 3 week gap.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
Well, we have had recent thread headers on "Why the forthcoming boundary review is bad news for the Tories?"
And "Why the catastrophic demise of Scottish Labour is bad news for the Tories?"
And "Why the vaccination program is bad news for the Tories?"
They were all from the Vanished Meeks.
OGH can't quite muster the same levels of cognitive dissonance as Meeks, but I still liked his header on "Why big poll leads are bad news for the Tories?"
Given the recent effectiveness of the opposition, I expect I'll be reading on May 7th
"Why overwhelming local election victories are bad news for the Tories?"
Can you link to the pieces with those exact headlines please?
Well, of course, I mayn't have remembered the exact headlines correctly ... but here are the first two Meeks specials on the boundary review & Scotland and why they are bad for the Tories:
Some countries are going to come out looking rather smarter than others.
What on earth would they actually do if they had to make the AZ suspension anything more than a relatively brief pause? This is the one thing that makes me think this is linked to supply issues. Especially in countries giving it to older people (maybe those not doing reason that it won't make much difference). Because they have given people first doses - are they going to prevent them having second ones? Maybe they also think that the evidence on AZ second doses gives them time - they wouldn't dare do the same with Pfizer and its mandated 3 week gap.
This is the part I don't get. If they stop using it entirely, it's a disaster. If they resume using it, they've given another huge round of ammo to the anti-vaxers, further increasing reluctance amongst the population.
I do find the Hodge's mindset peculiar. The battle to remain in the EU was comprehensively lost, and there won't be serious talk of re-joining (if at all) for many, many years. So why does the Hodge think that Remainers are obsessing about what the 'British people' think about Brexit? I'm not, and I doubt anyone else is either. All a rather pointless exercise.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
Well, we have had recent thread headers on "Why the forthcoming boundary review is bad news for the Tories?"
And "Why the catastrophic demise of Scottish Labour is bad news for the Tories?"
And "Why the vaccination program is bad news for the Tories?"
They were all from the Vanished Meeks.
OGH can't quite muster the same levels of cognitive dissonance as Meeks, but I still liked his header on "Why big poll leads are bad news for the Tories?"
Given the recent effectiveness of the opposition, I expect I'll be reading on May 7th
"Why overwhelming local election victories are bad news for the Tories?"
Can you link to the pieces with those exact headlines please?
Well, of course, I mayn't have remembered the exact headlines correctly ... but here are the first two Meeks specials on the boundary review & Scotland and why they are bad for the Tories:
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The only good outcome is that a rigorous investigation takes place and no serious adverse effects are found. Hopefully that will happen here! But suppose an - almost certainly very small - fatal effect is discovered, what then? Would public confidence in the process be higher if you had decided not to investigate? This does worry me.
I'm all in favour of Brexit, but what sort of life do you lead where it's the single most important decision in it?
Best =/= single most important
The best decision I ever made was emailing my future wife on match.com.
The worst decision was agreeing to take in a rescue dog called Zoya. The second worst was agreeing to take in a rescue dog named Chica. The third and fourth worst were agreeing to take in rescue cats called Samantha and Tabatha.
Dunno. Belgium has the 2nd highest Covid death toll in the world. Their minds will be laser-focused on killing the bug, at all cost.
The country with the very highest toll? Czechia. And they have ALSO said We still want Astra-Zeneca.
The country with the fourth highest toll (ignoring micro-nations) is the UK.
There is, perhaps, a very rough correlation between getting brutally shagged by Covid and then having a clear-headed, logical approach to it afterwards. See also Hungary - going for Sputnik and now vaxxing like mad, it's just after the UK on the list.
Italy is the outlier. Terrible death toll, still making bad decisions
Poland has a higher death toll than all (by excess) and is continuing with it too.
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The only good outcome is that a rigorous investigation takes place and no serious adverse effects are found. Hopefully that will happen here! But suppose an - almost certainly very small - fatal effect is discovered, what then? Would public confidence in the process be higher if you had decided not to investigate? This does worry me.
Some countries are going to come out looking rather smarter than others.
Belgium is one of the few countries on Earth to have suffered more Covid deaths per capita than the UK, and currently has a case rate per capita about five times higher than ours. And rising. They're also below the EU average rate for vaccinations, so it's no bloody wonder that they're desperate to get a move on.
The real source of astonishment is, of course, that hardly anyone else seems to be in any kind of a hurry at all. Of the old pre-enlargement EU15, I believe that only the UK, Belgium, Sweden and Finland have thus far declined to introduce at least some measure of restriction on the use of AZ. As I've said before, it's almost as if all these other countries enjoy lockdowns and dying, and want them to continue for as long as possible.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Politics is or should be about passion and indeed anger. One has a right to be angry and to express that anger passionately but I agree personalising that is counter-productive.
However, being angry about the consequences of, for example, Universal Credit and citing how that policy has affected individuals is wholly legitimate - in other words, if you make someone else as angry as you are you've made progress.
A big part of politics is passion - getting normally unexcited people excited about an issue is a huge part of engaging them in the political process. Oppositions do well when that engagement happens. A successful Opposition party is that blend of reasoned argument and directed passion.
Labour needs to find issues and causes which generate that passion and harness it. As an example, we all want the elderly to be well treated, we all want children to have the best opportunities in life. Citing where this Government is or has failed the elderly, showing examples of where children are being denied life opportunities - that's the kind of thing that engages because, as a wise man once said "we're all someone's daughter, we're all someone's son".
On topic, the modal view of the electorate is that Boris is an untrustworthy posh self-entitled twat but he's kind of entertaining, stands up for Britain, gets some things done, and has some bollocks so next to Starmer and anyone else they'll take him.
I'm all in favour of Brexit, but what sort of life do you lead where it's the single most important decision in it?
Best =/= single most important
The best decision I ever made was emailing my future wife on match.com.
The worst decision was agreeing to take in a rescue dog called Zoya. The second worst was agreeing to take in a rescue dog named Chica. The third and fourth worst were agreeing to take in rescue cats called Samantha and Tabatha.
Why am I getting the impression that the worst decisions were all a consequence of the best?
Why does anybody care what the poll ratings are between Boris and Starmer 3 plus years away from a general election?Who actually wastes money paying for these polls?
Your header, Mike, really did bring Life of Brian to mind instantly. "Well, apart from ...., what have the Romans ever done for us?"
In a PM “able to get things done” and “sticking up for Britain’s interests abroad” trump “likeable”
He’s a shit. But he’s *our* shit
One of the admirable things about the British Public over the last few months has been that they have moved towards or away from supporting the government fairly rationally. When the government has done a good job (e.g. vaccines), their support has gone up. When they have done a bad job (e.g. exam results, Christmas), their support has gone down.
All Boris has to do to keep on winning is keep on getting (the right) things done.
That's why, current hefty and deserved lead notwithstanding, I reckon he's in a bit of trouble.
The madness of using net rather than Gross Positives will make Starmer supporters feel good, and end in massive disappointment for them, I think
I disagree completely with Mike's way of analysing these polls. In my opinion it is the Gross Positives that matter - using Net figures accidentally gives undue weight to Don't Know's and Don't Cares, and forgets that 30% of people do not vote.
The truth is Boris leads in eight of the fourteen categories, with one tied, and Starmer leading in the other five. Net figures would lead you to believe more people think Sir Keir Likeable than they do Boris, when Boris gets 43 and Sir Keir 38, total madness
On average, 38% of respondents don't have a view either way on Sir Keir. If you think that is encouraging for someone who wants to take over as PM, trails in the polls, and is considered dull, I think you couldn't be more wrong.
Why does anybody care what the poll ratings are between Boris and Starmer 3 plus years away from a general election?Who actually wastes money paying for these polls?
I do find the Hodge's mindset peculiar. The battle to remain in the EU was comprehensively lost, and there won't be serious talk of re-joining (if at all) for many, many years. So why does the Hodge think that Remainers are obsessing about what the 'British people' think about Brexit? I'm not, and I doubt anyone else is either. All a rather pointless exercise.
Absolutely this. Most Remainers have long since come to terms with leaving, in my experience. Hodges seems determined to keep fighting yesterday’s war.
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The only good outcome is that a rigorous investigation takes place and no serious adverse effects are found. Hopefully that will happen here! But suppose an - almost certainly very small - fatal effect is discovered, what then? Would public confidence in the process be higher if you had decided not to investigate? This does worry me.
To be clear, this can happen to any of the vaccines and I am not commenting on whether suspension is a good idea or not.
The EMA has already said there is no link. Or do you think that they can only have a serious investigation between now and Thursday?
Besides which, what happens if, in another couple of weeks, two old biddies in Dusseldorf die of (insert any other cause: stroke, heart attack, fainting and falling down the stairs, whatever the fuck else) the day after getting the jab, and 'public trust' then demands that everything grinds to a halt for another x-number of days or weeks whilst the government shits its pants and passes the files to the EMA for review?
If they're going to stop once to look into a problem, even though it's blindingly obvious that it doesn't exist (AND even if it did is so rare that the delay in vaccinating will cause tens or hundreds of times more deaths than the problem itself,) then who's to say it won't happen again? And again, and again, and again?
The madness of using net rather than Gross Positives will make Starmer supporters feel good, and end in massive disappointment for them, I think
I disagree completely with Mike's way of analysing these polls. In my opinion it is the Gross Positives that matter - using Net figures accidentally gives undue weight to Don't Know's and Don't Cares, and forgets that 30% of people do not vote.
The truth is Boris leads in eight of the fourteen categories, with one tied, and Starmer leading in the other five. Net figures would lead you to believe more people think Sir Keir Likeable than they do Boris, when Boris gets 43 and Sir Keir 38, total madness
On average, 38% of respondents don't have a view either way on Sir Keir. If you think that is encouraging for someone who wants to take over as PM, trails in the polls, and is considered dull, I think you couldn't be more wrong.
You also need to see the trend on those numbers. Las few months suggest Starmer's numbers going south whilst Boris's are improving.
Why does anybody care what the poll ratings are between Boris and Starmer 3 plus years away from a general election?Who actually wastes money paying for these polls?
Welcome to PB, you must be new here.
Well I’ve been here for years and I agree with him. Who cares what the polls say in midterm? I say this whether Labour is up or down. In the middle of a global pandemic polls are even more meaningless, to the extent that’s even possible.
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The only good outcome is that a rigorous investigation takes place and no serious adverse effects are found. Hopefully that will happen here! But suppose an - almost certainly very small - fatal effect is discovered, what then? Would public confidence in the process be higher if you had decided not to investigate? This does worry me.
To be clear, this can happen to any of the vaccines and I am not commenting on whether suspension is a good idea or not.
The EMA has already said there is no link. Or do you think that they can only have a serious investigation between now and Thursday?
Besides which, what happens if, in another couple of weeks, two old biddies in Dusseldorf die of (insert any other cause: stroke, heart attack, fainting and falling down the stairs, whatever the fuck else) the day after getting the jab, and 'public trust' then demands that everything grinds to a halt for another x-number of days or weeks whilst the government shits its pants and passes the files to the EMA for review?
If they're going to stop once to look into a problem, even though it's blindingly obvious that it doesn't exist (AND even if it did is so rare that the delay in vaccinating will cause tens or hundreds of times more deaths than the problem itself,) then who's to say it won't happen again? And again, and again, and again?
Depends. Did the old biddies get the Pfizer jab, or AZN?
Why does anybody care what the poll ratings are between Boris and Starmer 3 plus years away from a general election?Who actually wastes money paying for these polls?
Welcome to PB, you must be new here.
Well I’ve been here for years and I agree with him. Who cares what the polls say in midterm? I say this whether Labour is up or down. In the middle of a global pandemic they are even more meaningless.
Agree they are quite meaningless. Doesn't mean we don't care enough about them to spend hours bickering over them.
The madness of using net rather than Gross Positives will make Starmer supporters feel good, and end in massive disappointment for them, I think
I disagree completely with Mike's way of analysing these polls. In my opinion it is the Gross Positives that matter - using Net figures accidentally gives undue weight to Don't Know's and Don't Cares, and forgets that 30% of people do not vote.
The truth is Boris leads in eight of the fourteen categories, with one tied, and Starmer leading in the other five. Net figures would lead you to believe more people think Sir Keir Likeable than they do Boris, when Boris gets 43 and Sir Keir 38, total madness
On average, 38% of respondents don't have a view either way on Sir Keir. If you think that is encouraging for someone who wants to take over as PM, trails in the polls, and is considered dull, I think you couldn't be more wrong.
I do find the Hodge's mindset peculiar. The battle to remain in the EU was comprehensively lost, and there won't be serious talk of re-joining (if at all) for many, many years. So why does the Hodge think that Remainers are obsessing about what the 'British people' think about Brexit? I'm not, and I doubt anyone else is either. All a rather pointless exercise.
Absolutely this. Most Remainers have long since come to terms with leaving, in my experience. Hodges seems determined to keep fighting yesterday’s war.
If the enemy doesn't exist, then the war is over.
And if the war is over, what holds "our side" together any more?
Like The War in 1984, the Brexit War and the Culture War aren't really there to be won or lost. They're there to create the strange psychology that keeps people in power.
Whether you think Mike is right or I am, it is interesting to see just how massive the gap between using the two ways of looking at these numbers is. One of us is pretty spectacularly wrong. I'd bet pretty heavy odds on on it being Mike, but what do I know?
Police are investigating reports that a woman mourning the death of Sarah Everard was flashed by a man as she made her way home, but was not taken seriously when she tried to report it to officers on the ground.
The woman, named only as Georgina, said an officer told her they were sick of the people attending the vigil on Clapham Common in south-west London and falsely called them “rioters”. Georgina said officers showed no inclination to help her to safety despite the incident having taken place only a short distance from where Everard was last seen alive less than a fortnight earlier.
Georgina later complained to police about the incident not being taken seriously. On Monday, Scotland Yard confirmed it had received a report of indecent exposure at about 8pm on Saturday. “The complainant, a woman, reported that a man had exposed himself. An appointment has been made with the woman to progress this.
“We are aware of a report that she tried to report this incident at the time to officers in the area – this will be looked at.”
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
They're all obsessed with the idea that the UK Govt is killing us by delaying the second vaccine. There may also be an element of trying to reinforce the narrative they have trying is that the reason we are so far ahead is because the Government has been taking reckless risks with public health, even if it might ultimately be seen to be justified. All these suspensions are in a way a necessary approach to maintain the narrative.
Of course, if they really believed it they would never have started their vaccine programmes in the first place.
Why does anybody care what the poll ratings are between Boris and Starmer 3 plus years away from a general election?Who actually wastes money paying for these polls?
Welcome to PB, you must be new here.
Well I’ve been here for years and I agree with him. Who cares what the polls say in midterm? I say this whether Labour is up or down. In the middle of a global pandemic they are even more meaningless.
Agree they are quite meaningless. Doesn't mean we don't care enough about them to spend hours bickering over them.
I don’t even do that, my comments are always of the “who cares?” variety.
Polls only serve to distract from crucial discussions surrounding the global career path of Mark Drakeford, the spelling of Sir Keir’s given name, and the staying power of Lord Falconer.
Once again Keir's numbers are massively flattered by people comparing Net numbers and not comparing the Agree numbers. Boris is a polarising figure in a way that Keir isn't, but that doesn't mean people are agreeing with Keir.
If you look solely at the two leader's Net Agree figures, then compare them, you get a completely different result.
Decisive: -3 (as opposed to -21) In touch with ordinary people: -10 (as opposed to -30) Represents what most people think +1 (as opposed to -8) Has views similar to my own: 0 (as opposed to -11) Has the nation's best interests at heart: +1 (as opposed to -13) Strong leader: +4 (as opposed to -6) Able to get things done: +13 (as opposed to +5) Stand up for Britain's interests abroad: +13 (as opposed to +7) Sticks to principles: -1 (as opposed to -15) Trustworthy: -3 (as opposed to -20) Brave: +8 (as opposed to -4) Can be trusted to take big decisions: +5 (as opposed to -9, missing off OGH's chart) Competent: -5 (as opposed to -23) Likeable: +6 (as opposed to -2)
By looking at the agree figures Boris leads on 8, there's 1 neutral and 5 for Keir.
Oh you beat me to it! Shame on me for not reading the thread!!
I'm all in favour of Brexit, but what sort of life do you lead where it's the single most important decision in it?
Best =/= single most important
The best decision I ever made was emailing my future wife on match.com.
The worst decision was agreeing to take in a rescue dog called Zoya. The second worst was agreeing to take in a rescue dog named Chica. The third and fourth worst were agreeing to take in rescue cats called Samantha and Tabatha.
Why am I getting the impression that the worst decisions were all a consequence of the best?
Basically, if I could go back in time and give myself one piece of advice it would be "say no to animals".
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
He's a good closer, but not as impressive when it comes to cross examination is the view of an eminent QC I know, which concurs with your conclusion.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
They're all obsessed with the idea that the UK Govt is killing us by delaying the second vaccine.
Or maybe we're delaying the second shot because we *know* it will cause tens of thousands of blood clots...
Why does anybody care what the poll ratings are between Boris and Starmer 3 plus years away from a general election?Who actually wastes money paying for these polls?
Welcome to PB, you must be new here.
Well I’ve been here for years and I agree with him. Who cares what the polls say in midterm? I say this whether Labour is up or down. In the middle of a global pandemic they are even more meaningless.
Agree they are quite meaningless. Doesn't mean we don't care enough about them to spend hours bickering over them.
I don’t even do that, my comments are always of the “who cares?” variety.
Polls only serve to distract from crucial discussions surrounding the global career path of Mark Drakeford, the spelling of Sir Keir’s given name, and the staying power of Lord Falconer.
Yes, but not everyone on PB does that. A lot of time is spent discussing them. Hence my "welcome to PB" comment.
It looks as though this year will be the deadliest ever on the US slopes.
Google News throws up reports of a number of skiing deaths in the US in the last few weeks, including Tahoe.
So, we can certainly conclude that skiing is a good deal more dangerous than the AZ vaccine.
I hope the cautious EU bans such a reckless activity.
That's a terrible comparison.
If you look at the amount of time people spend getting vaccinated, and compare it to the amount of time people spend skiing, then you'll see that on a "risk per minute" basis, the AZ vaccine is 100x more dangerous.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
Some memes are more tenacious than others, just as some religions/ideologies, once they absorb you, are extremely difficult to dislodge, whereas others drop away quite easily. See williamglenn and Remainerism
Antivaxxery is incredibly hard to shift. I've no idea why. HOWEVER there is one thing that can crack it, in my experience - clear and obvious threat of death. Given that death is what Covid brings, in spades, I am optimistic all but the most stubborn will yield, in the end. The alternative will be a life of hiding and no travel, and quite possibly a much shorter life, as well
I do find the Hodge's mindset peculiar. The battle to remain in the EU was comprehensively lost, and there won't be serious talk of re-joining (if at all) for many, many years. So why does the Hodge think that Remainers are obsessing about what the 'British people' think about Brexit? I'm not, and I doubt anyone else is either. All a rather pointless exercise.
Absolutely this. Most Remainers have long since come to terms with leaving, in my experience. Hodges seems determined to keep fighting yesterday’s war.
You meam Scottn Paste is the last warrior fighting in the jungle? Surely you'd have to add Wodger from Hartlepool as well.
I do find the Hodge's mindset peculiar. The battle to remain in the EU was comprehensively lost, and there won't be serious talk of re-joining (if at all) for many, many years. So why does the Hodge think that Remainers are obsessing about what the 'British people' think about Brexit? I'm not, and I doubt anyone else is either. All a rather pointless exercise.
Absolutely this. Most Remainers have long since come to terms with leaving, in my experience. Hodges seems determined to keep fighting yesterday’s war.
Won't he be moving in the same circles as Ian Dunt ?
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
Unless the Tories really make a monumental feck-up (admittedly, not impossible), this verdict is correct.
SKS is heading for defeat -- and probably a worse defeat than Ed Miliband. He is not up to the job in England (where he faces Boris) and Scotland (where he faces Nicola). He is not nimble enough to appeal to the disparate coalition that Labour needs to build.
It is pretty obvious to everyone that SKS is heading for defeat, except those who do not actually want to see it.
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - maybe he will find it easier post-pandemic.
If you are right, then there are still important things that Starmer can achieve as Labour leader. He can sort them out internally. He could start up some long-term thinking about where they want to take the country and how they would achieve that in government - hopefully coming up with ideas a bit more imaginative than what they want to spend money on. He could identify bright young MPs and give them a chance to develop to become the cabinet heavyweights of the future.
All of these would put the Labour Party into better shape for his successor.
Sorry, I is confused: which character in The Wizard of Oz was gay?
I don't know and I don't care, but no way should a film featuring those flying monkeys have a "U" certificate.
That's not as bad as Watership Down getting one.
They haven't really given it a U have they? Even many of the parts that are not viciously bloody are surreal and dark enough to be very creepy for young children.
I heartily recommend it for kids though, it certainly stayed with me!
The madness of using net rather than Gross Positives will make Starmer supporters feel good, and end in massive disappointment for them, I think
I disagree completely with Mike's way of analysing these polls. In my opinion it is the Gross Positives that matter - using Net figures accidentally gives undue weight to Don't Know's and Don't Cares, and forgets that 30% of people do not vote.
The truth is Boris leads in eight of the fourteen categories, with one tied, and Starmer leading in the other five. Net figures would lead you to believe more people think Sir Keir Likeable than they do Boris, when Boris gets 43 and Sir Keir 38, total madness
On average, 38% of respondents don't have a view either way on Sir Keir. If you think that is encouraging for someone who wants to take over as PM, trails in the polls, and is considered dull, I think you couldn't be more wrong.
Great minds think alike, see my post at 8:13.
I 100% agree with you.
Boris is very much better known than Keir, and also something of a Marmite character, so you'd expect gross positives to be higher (and gross negatives to be lower). I talk to a lot of voters who haven't seen much of Keir and don't have more than the vaguest opinion of him - "Seems OK", "more moderate than most politicians". He doesn't have Jeremy Corbyn's enthusiastic following, nor do many people hate him.
That's partly because he's been very cautious, but also a pandemic effect - people just aren't paying attention to politics at all beyond the pandemic. Who's the Foreign Secretary? Who's the LibDem leader? You'd find that 70% couldn't answer either question.
What happens when politics defreezes? We actually don't know, however much we'd like to believe one thing or the other.
It may well be. It doesn't make the common tactic of putting outrageous/controversial measures in wider bills, and then claiming that that any opposition to the bill on the basis of their inclusion, is actually opposition to the other far less controversial proposals, any less despicable.
We all understand the job of the Opposition in a democracy and especially in the UK system, is to oppose. An Opposition party should not be cowed into not doing so and should not be criticised for fulfilling their constitutional role.
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
Unless the Tories really make a monumental feck-up (admittedly, not impossible), this verdict is correct.
SKS is heading for defeat -- and probably a worse defeat than Ed Miliband. He is not up to the job in England (where he faces Boris) and Scotland (where he faces Nicola). He is not nimble enough to appeal to the disparate coalition that Labour needs to build.
It is pretty obvious to everyone that SKS is heading for defeat, except those who do not actually want to see it.
It looks as though this year will be the deadliest ever on the US slopes.
Google News throws up reports of a number of skiing deaths in the US in the last few weeks, including Tahoe.
So, we can certainly conclude that skiing is a good deal more dangerous than the AZ vaccine.
I hope the cautious EU bans such a reckless activity.
That's a terrible comparison.
If you look at the amount of time people spend getting vaccinated, and compare it to the amount of time people spend skiing, then you'll see that on a "risk per minute" basis, the AZ vaccine is 100x more dangerous.
Well, let's do the sums.
Here is North America:
"Based on 52.8 million total skier/snowboarder visits during the 2015-16 season, the fatality rate converts to less than one fatality per one million skier visits (or 0.74 fatalities per one million skier visits during the 2015-16 season, slightly above the 10-year average rate of 0.67 fatalities per million skier visits)." (Source NSAA)
So you are saying the AZ has a fatality rate of worse than 0.74 per one million patient visits.
There have been at least 237 million jabs worldwide, of course not all AZ.
Let's say AZ is 20 per cent of them -- so where are the 0.2 * 237 * 0.74 = 35 deaths from AZ ?
The madness of using net rather than Gross Positives will make Starmer supporters feel good, and end in massive disappointment for them, I think
I disagree completely with Mike's way of analysing these polls. In my opinion it is the Gross Positives that matter - using Net figures accidentally gives undue weight to Don't Know's and Don't Cares, and forgets that 30% of people do not vote.
The truth is Boris leads in eight of the fourteen categories, with one tied, and Starmer leading in the other five. Net figures would lead you to believe more people think Sir Keir Likeable than they do Boris, when Boris gets 43 and Sir Keir 38, total madness
On average, 38% of respondents don't have a view either way on Sir Keir. If you think that is encouraging for someone who wants to take over as PM, trails in the polls, and is considered dull, I think you couldn't be more wrong.
Great minds think alike, see my post at 8:13.
I 100% agree with you.
Boris is very much better known than Keir, and also something of a Marmite character, so you'd expect gross positives to be higher (and gross negatives to be lower). I talk to a lot of voters who haven't seen much of Keir and don't have more than the vaguest opinion of him - "Seems OK", "more moderate than most politicians". He doesn't have Jeremy Corbyn's enthusiastic following, nor do many people hate him.
That's partly because he's been very cautious, but also a pandemic effect - people just aren't paying attention to politics at all beyond the pandemic. Who's the Foreign Secretary? Who's the LibDem leader? You'd find that 70% couldn't answer either question.
What happens when politics defreezes? We actually don't know, however much we'd like to believe one thing or the other.
Given the Tories discovery of the magic money tree, they also seem rather complacent about the future economic impact of its liberal exploitation. Or they've given up most of their core beliefs in about 12 months.
Sorry, I is confused: which character in The Wizard of Oz was gay?
I don't know and I don't care, but no way should a film featuring those flying monkeys have a "U" certificate.
That's not as bad as Watership Down getting one.
They haven't really given it a U have they? Even many of the parts that are not viciously bloody are surreal and dark enough to be very creepy for young children.
I heartily recommend it for kids though, it certainly stayed with me!
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
He's a good closer, but not as impressive when it comes to cross examination is the view of an eminent QC I know, which concurs with your conclusion.
You think the next GE campaign will involve "cross examination"?
One thing about the political impact of the pandemic that has surprised me is that I expected more political leaders to suffer from the anger of their voters at the failure to prevent second and third waves of infection - especially with the possibility of making comparisons with countries that have escaped relatively unscathed (such as NZ, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, however problematic those comparisons might be).
Voters don't tend normally to be forgiving of the practical difficulties of government, so I don't see why they would suddenly be giving governments the benefit of the doubt in relation to the difficulties of imposing effective infection controls.
Surely then, this is merely anger deferred as a result of an unwillingness to rock the boat during a time of crisis?
Everyone seems to think this is a translation but surely this is just Holborn "translating" it with his own "translation"?
Quite. What he says is "We will not suspend vaccination with AstraZeneca as there is no proven link with thrombosis."
I frankly wish a few more would be a bit more blunt and say that they wouldn't suspend it, even if there was evidence of slightly enhanced risk. Otherwise they're potentially setting themselves up for a major problem. What if the EMA says "there's no evidence of a link, particularly based on statistical analysis, but we can't definitively rule it out". Where do they (the national bodies that have been preaching 'caution' go from there?
I've paid more attention than most to Starmer. Whilst a forensic examiner he simply doesn't have what it takes, going to be demolished at the next GE I think.
Unless the Tories really make a monumental feck-up (admittedly, not impossible), this verdict is correct.
SKS is heading for defeat -- and probably a worse defeat than Ed Miliband. He is not up to the job in England (where he faces Boris) and Scotland (where he faces Nicola). He is not nimble enough to appeal to the disparate coalition that Labour needs to build.
It is pretty obvious to everyone that SKS is heading for defeat, except those who do not actually want to see it.
Labour need their Ardern.
Except that, now the provincial wing of the Labour Party has collapsed (in the towns and small cities its few remaining seats seem safe only where there are huge concentrations of students or voters of South Asian descent,) how can it rebuild a winning voter coalition? Strong support amongst metropolitan liberals, ethnic minorities and the under 35s might be enough to keep hold of 150 seats even after an utter massacre, but it's woefully short of what's needed to win an election, especially given that most of that base has shuffled off to join a different party in Scotland.
Above all, accounting both for demographic structure and propensity to turn out, half of the electorate at a general election is aged over 55, i.e. pensioners or those reasonably close to joining their ranks. Oldies now massively favour the Tories and seem to have precious little interest in changing their minds. Quite how these disadvantages are to be overcome is far from obvious. Labour basically seems to be left sat on the margins and hoping desperately that an economic catastrophe allows it back into the game.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
Damn, he’s on to us and the 5m person cover up. Change the subject everyone.
This 61 year old Scot got his vaccine appointment letter today. It gave me 2 1/2 days notice. Just as well the vaccination centre is five minutes walk away....
This 61 year old Scot got his vaccine appointment letter today. It gave me 2 1/2 days notice. Just as well the vaccination centre is five minutes walk away....
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
One thing about the political impact of the pandemic that has surprised me is that I expected more political leaders to suffer from the anger of their voters at the failure to prevent second and third waves of infection - especially with the possibility of making comparisons with countries that have escaped relatively unscathed (such as NZ, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, however problematic those comparisons might be).
Voters don't tend normally to be forgiving of the practical difficulties of government, so I don't see why they would suddenly be giving governments the benefit of the doubt in relation to the difficulties of imposing effective infection controls.
Surely then, this is merely anger deferred as a result of an unwillingness to rock the boat during a time of crisis?
In our case I think that the accumulation of crap performance in the US and many of our European neighbours, followed by good performance on the vaccine rollout, has let the Government off the hook.
That fraction of the close friends and relatives of the Covid dead who blame the Government (which will be a substantial fraction, one would imagine, but by no means 100% of them) are unlikely to be appeased. But most people, thank goodness, have not been made to suffer as part of that category and will just be mightily relieved to be let out for the Summer. And if swathes of continental Europe are having to suffer lockdown for another three or six months after we've been released then it'll just make the Government's performance look even better.
The likelihood of significant numbers of people breathing a sigh of relief in June and then suddenly descending into rage over the dead in September seems really very low.
Comments
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
How do people not know these things?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1371560740570722310
The brutal reality with Keir that is revealed by looking at Gross rather than Net figures is that Keir isn't well thought of, he isn't badly thought of . . . he's simply not thought of.
The country with the very highest toll? Czechia. And they have ALSO said We still want Astra-Zeneca.
The country with the fourth highest toll (ignoring micro-nations) is the UK.
There is, perhaps, a very rough correlation between getting brutally shagged by Covid and then having a clear-headed, logical approach to it afterwards. See also Hungary - going for Sputnik and now vaxxing like mad, it's just after the UK on the list.
Italy is the outlier. Terrible death toll, still making bad decisions
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/08/why-the-boundary-changes-probably-matter-less-than-you-think/
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/14/scots-missed-the-parliamentary-dynamics-of-scottish-independence/
You don't have to approve of Boris to think that (I) the boundary review and (ii) the situation in Scotland make Starmer's job harder, not easier.
https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1371540025930842117
To be clear, this can happen to any of the vaccines and I am not commenting on whether suspension is a good idea or not.
The worst decision was agreeing to take in a rescue dog called Zoya. The second worst was agreeing to take in a rescue dog named Chica. The third and fourth worst were agreeing to take in rescue cats called Samantha and Tabatha.
ThursdayTuesday?The real source of astonishment is, of course, that hardly anyone else seems to be in any kind of a hurry at all. Of the old pre-enlargement EU15, I believe that only the UK, Belgium, Sweden and Finland have thus far declined to introduce at least some measure of restriction on the use of AZ. As I've said before, it's almost as if all these other countries enjoy lockdowns and dying, and want them to continue for as long as possible.
However, being angry about the consequences of, for example, Universal Credit and citing how that policy has affected individuals is wholly legitimate - in other words, if you make someone else as angry as you are you've made progress.
A big part of politics is passion - getting normally unexcited people excited about an issue is a huge part of engaging them in the political process. Oppositions do well when that engagement happens. A successful Opposition party is that blend of reasoned argument and directed passion.
Labour needs to find issues and causes which generate that passion and harness it. As an example, we all want the elderly to be well treated, we all want children to have the best opportunities in life. Citing where this Government is or has failed the elderly, showing examples of where children are being denied life opportunities - that's the kind of thing that engages because, as a wise man once said "we're all someone's daughter, we're all someone's son".
Next.
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
All Boris has to do to keep on winning is keep on getting (the right) things done.
That's why, current hefty and deserved lead notwithstanding, I reckon he's in a bit of trouble.
The truth is Boris leads in eight of the fourteen categories, with one tied, and Starmer leading in the other five. Net figures would lead you to believe more people think Sir Keir Likeable than they do Boris, when Boris gets 43 and Sir Keir 38, total madness
On average, 38% of respondents don't have a view either way on Sir Keir. If you think that is encouraging for someone who wants to take over as PM, trails in the polls, and is considered dull, I think you couldn't be more wrong.
If they're going to stop once to look into a problem, even though it's blindingly obvious that it doesn't exist (AND even if it did is so rare that the delay in vaccinating will cause tens or hundreds of times more deaths than the problem itself,) then who's to say it won't happen again? And again, and again, and again?
We may have already had Peak Starmer.
I 100% agree with you.
And if the war is over, what holds "our side" together any more?
Like The War in 1984, the Brexit War and the Culture War aren't really there to be won or lost. They're there to create the strange psychology that keeps people in power.
Google News throws up reports of a number of skiing deaths in the US in the last few weeks, including Tahoe.
So, we can certainly conclude that skiing is a good deal more dangerous than the AZ vaccine.
I hope the cautious EU bans such a reckless activity.
The woman, named only as Georgina, said an officer told her they were sick of the people attending the vigil on Clapham Common in south-west London and falsely called them “rioters”. Georgina said officers showed no inclination to help her to safety despite the incident having taken place only a short distance from where Everard was last seen alive less than a fortnight earlier.
Georgina later complained to police about the incident not being taken seriously. On Monday, Scotland Yard confirmed it had received a report of indecent exposure at about 8pm on Saturday. “The complainant, a woman, reported that a man had exposed himself. An appointment has been made with the woman to progress this.
“We are aware of a report that she tried to report this incident at the time to officers in the area – this will be looked at.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/15/officers-allegedly-failed-to-help-woman-flashed-at-way-home-sarah-everard-vigil
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
Of course, if they really believed it they would never have started their vaccine programmes in the first place.
Polls only serve to distract from crucial discussions surrounding the global career path of Mark Drakeford, the spelling of Sir Keir’s given name, and the staying power of Lord Falconer.
If you look at the amount of time people spend getting vaccinated, and compare it to the amount of time people spend skiing, then you'll see that on a "risk per minute" basis, the AZ vaccine is 100x more dangerous.
Some memes are more tenacious than others, just as some religions/ideologies, once they absorb you, are extremely difficult to dislodge, whereas others drop away quite easily. See williamglenn and Remainerism
Antivaxxery is incredibly hard to shift. I've no idea why. HOWEVER there is one thing that can crack it, in my experience - clear and obvious threat of death. Given that death is what Covid brings, in spades, I am optimistic all but the most stubborn will yield, in the end. The alternative will be a life of hiding and no travel, and quite possibly a much shorter life, as well
SKS is heading for defeat -- and probably a worse defeat than Ed Miliband. He is not up to the job in England (where he faces Boris) and Scotland (where he faces Nicola). He is not nimble enough to appeal to the disparate coalition that Labour needs to build.
It is pretty obvious to everyone that SKS is heading for defeat, except those who do not actually want to see it.
Labour need their Ardern.
If you are right, then there are still important things that Starmer can achieve as Labour leader. He can sort them out internally. He could start up some long-term thinking about where they want to take the country and how they would achieve that in government - hopefully coming up with ideas a bit more imaginative than what they want to spend money on. He could identify bright young MPs and give them a chance to develop to become the cabinet heavyweights of the future.
All of these would put the Labour Party into better shape for his successor.
AZ seems to as a side effect reduce not increase the likelihood of people getting them.
I heartily recommend it for kids though, it certainly stayed with me!
That's partly because he's been very cautious, but also a pandemic effect - people just aren't paying attention to politics at all beyond the pandemic. Who's the Foreign Secretary? Who's the LibDem leader? You'd find that 70% couldn't answer either question.
What happens when politics defreezes? We actually don't know, however much we'd like to believe one thing or the other.
We all understand the job of the Opposition in a democracy and especially in the UK system, is to oppose. An Opposition party should not be cowed into not doing so and should not be criticised for fulfilling their constitutional role.
Fortunately, the UK =/= New Zealand.
Here is North America:
"Based on 52.8 million total skier/snowboarder visits during the 2015-16 season, the fatality rate converts to less than one fatality per one million skier visits (or 0.74 fatalities per one million skier visits during the 2015-16 season, slightly above the 10-year average rate of 0.67 fatalities per million skier visits)." (Source NSAA)
So you are saying the AZ has a fatality rate of worse than 0.74 per one million patient visits.
There have been at least 237 million jabs worldwide, of course not all AZ.
Let's say AZ is 20 per cent of them -- so where are the 0.2 * 237 * 0.74 = 35 deaths from AZ ?
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/watership-down-film-qxnzzxq6vlgtnju4ndi1
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
Voters don't tend normally to be forgiving of the practical difficulties of government, so I don't see why they would suddenly be giving governments the benefit of the doubt in relation to the difficulties of imposing effective infection controls.
Surely then, this is merely anger deferred as a result of an unwillingness to rock the boat during a time of crisis?
Above all, accounting both for demographic structure and propensity to turn out, half of the electorate at a general election is aged over 55, i.e. pensioners or those reasonably close to joining their ranks. Oldies now massively favour the Tories and seem to have precious little interest in changing their minds. Quite how these disadvantages are to be overcome is far from obvious. Labour basically seems to be left sat on the margins and hoping desperately that an economic catastrophe allows it back into the game.
“Would you vote for X party? Yes/No/Don’t know”
and the results were
Conservative Y 30 N 70
Labour Y 22 N 40 DK 38
LibDem Y 10 N 45 DK 45
Green Y 5 N 50 DK 45
This would leave net figures of
Con -40
Lab -18
LD -35
Green -45
But when you take into account turnout in GEs is 70% ish that translates to vote share of
Con 43%
Lab 31%
LD 14%
Green 7%
(SNP 5%)
SKS is basically Adlai Stevenson, another lawyer.
Intellectuals, journalists, political commentators, celebrities -- they all loved Adlai.
He lost.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first
Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical
Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious
Fatalists
Covid deniers
Conspiracy therorists
That fraction of the close friends and relatives of the Covid dead who blame the Government (which will be a substantial fraction, one would imagine, but by no means 100% of them) are unlikely to be appeased. But most people, thank goodness, have not been made to suffer as part of that category and will just be mightily relieved to be let out for the Summer. And if swathes of continental Europe are having to suffer lockdown for another three or six months after we've been released then it'll just make the Government's performance look even better.
The likelihood of significant numbers of people breathing a sigh of relief in June and then suddenly descending into rage over the dead in September seems really very low.