I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
I can think of a dozen people on the local council estate who would be more qualified to be PM than Rayner
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Angela Rayner...and as Deputy she gets the gig for some months during a contest.
Angela Rayner is ghastly, appallingly rude in the Commons and barely has a GCSE, even Corbyn was better than she would be
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Blair was also a London lawyer and managed to win the Midlands and Red Wall
Chuka is Tony Blair with the bullshit / insincerity turned up to 11...000.
It's the political skills at 0.001 that's the real problem.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
I don't get why so many people were ok with the govt locking us indoors for a year and are now horrified at them being cautious about letting us all out again - I must be one of a a small number on here who was angry about the former but can understand the latter
It's quite bizarre and almost hysterical the way people are over-reacting to the Government being cautious. At this point we have a hugely successful vaccine programme but no-one can know yet , for example, how long the vaccines will provide protection and there is still some uncertainty about the potential impact of variants and the extent to which transmission is controlled. All of the signs are good but it would be wilfully irresponsible of any government to declare it's all over and let's all party! Obviously I can understand how exhausted people are - personally I have at least 2 months to wait for a vaccine here in Spain so I do get it. However, I see people here displaying the traits of the very worst of the crappy journalists. Cyclefree's declaration that now she's being jabbed the government can get stuffed was just one of the appalling and least sensitive comments, but she is not alone.
We do know the answer to many of those questions, though.
For a start, the people on the clinical trials are still being studied, and there doesn't seem to be any let up in protection for people on the Pfizer jab. (Bear in mind some of these people had their first shot 10 or 11 months ago now) If protection was going to fade quickly, we'd see it in the numbers from the trials
Secondly, we know that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is not dented by either Kent or Saffer Covid. There is some diminution in efficacy for AZ for the SA variant (although that is likely overstated by the very limited trial), but the other vaccines seem to also be pretty good against it.
Thirdly, we can look at Israel, They're a little ahead of us (and the AZ vaccine takes longer to cash its protective halo), but they are now essentially fully open to travel and their nightclubs are now booming. If there is a variant that can completely evade the vaccines, we'll see it soon enough there.
*** ALERT. The following rambling post contains doomporn
I don’t think anyone can know what is going to happen.
Why was the cautious Downing Street briefing predicting a third wave to hit UK? And why is that even deemed controversial? I haven’t come here to knock them, because we can’t just nod when we agree with what they say, sit on our nodding when we don’t, unless Unless Science itself does help with problems but not with 100% record to make us know for sure what happens. I’m not as convinced as I had become the vaccines are going to bring this to an end anytime soon and the roadmap is leading to any end to COVID spikes and lockdowns. It all died back last year without vaccines.
The problems on the next phase I think is, 2nd and 3rd time of getting covid, where you can feel more sick than the other time and maybe even more chance of long covid the second and third time of getting sick with it, which, crucially, brings with it the issue of work age population not being able to work. The economic disaster bit of the pandemic could be yet to come.
My guess now is we are going into a lull between lockdown, also pandemic enters new phase where we try to live with it as normal as possible, yet the long covid casualties start mounting up into economic damage so all the countries go broke.
So, your view is that vaccines suddenly stop working?
It’s exactly the sort of glib one liners like yours I received back that could actually prove something is missing from the discussion. Let me explain it like this, then you could actually say wether you can see the point I am making.
Do I believe vaccines work? Is that vaccination programmes in general or just this one? I believe in general that vaccination is a great breakthrough in human science. So about covid vaccine? What do you mean work? That it makes covid disappear? If so, in what sort of timeframe
Is it really fiction for me to say the briefing today offered up potential or even likelihood of third wave in UK?
And one for you if I may. Would you put the risk, that while we come out of lockdown and try to cohabit with covid, the risk to the working population getting long covid and hurting the economy is zero - it’s such a silly point I am making it shouldn’t even be brought up and bottom out?
The risk is not zero.
This is a case of measuring benefit and cost.
Every year in the UK, more than 150,000 people are injured in road accidents and almost 2,000 people die.
What if I said there was a simple policy that could cut road deaths by 99% and accidents by more than 75%? What if I said it would reduce fossil fuel emissions? And make the streets quieter?
All we need to do is to reduce speed limits everywhere to just 15 miles per hour. That's it! It would dramatically cut accident rates and road deaths.
Now, it would of course be a massive inconvenience to people. But it would avoid many, many people suffering the lingering effects of road traffic accidents.
We - as a society - have decided that we want the economic activity that comes with being able to get people at reasonably rapid rates. It comes with a cost, of course, in terms of pollution, accidents, and the like. But we've decided that price is worth it.
There are costs to having Covid restrictions, in terms of mental and physical health, and in terms of diminished economic activity.
The rise of vaccines, and their extraordinary ability (as evidenced in Israel) to allow an essentially complete return to normal life is something to be celebrated. Now, we can disagree about the right pace of removing restrictions, but at some point they need to go.
And we can simply watch Israel here, as they will have opened up around three months before us. If cases start to rise there, and in new variants take hold, well we'll get plenty of warning. Because they are the first mover here, and we're just following in their footsteps.
You'd just trade road deaths for pollution deaths, at least until an all-electric national fleet. The only way it would be enforceable would be speed limiters fitted to every engine. 15 mph is not the most efficient speed for fuel use. Each journey would last far longer than it need, at pollution-spewing inefficient speeds. There'd be city-centre gridlock - and even 15mph would be unachievable for many. Ambulances wouldn't get their critical cases to hospital so people would die in transit.
It would be abandoned within the week. What we have is a reasonable balance. The flip side is suggesting everyone should drive twice as fast. You would half the number of road hours. The number of accidents would be less - but be of far greater severity when they did happen.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
What about Jo Rowling>?
Who?
Do you mean JK Rowling? Has she even had anything to do with the Labour Party in the past decade?
Yes. The smart and eloquent self made billionaires, formerly one of Labour's biggest donors, lived for years in Scotland, has a strong personal brand that cuts across political allegiances and has declared a personal war on woke. She would be superb.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Angela Rayner...and as Deputy she gets the gig for some months during a contest.
Angela Rayner is ghastly, appallingly rude in the Commons and barely has a GCSE, even Corbyn was better than she would be
I think your class prejudice is showing.
As if Johnson is never rude!
It isn't, someone like Alan Johnson came from an even harder background than Rayner but unlike her he has manners and some intelligence.
Boris has wit and brains too unlike Rayner who is just rude and uncouth
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
I agree. Might seem an odd question but do Labour's rules require leadership nominees to be MPs or can they be Lords?
I am serious about Jo Rowling. She'd wipe the floor with all of them if she wanted to.
JK Rowling's been cancelled for wrongthink - you'd have more chance getting Jacob Rees-Mogg elected Labour leader.
I don't get why so many people were ok with the govt locking us indoors for a year and are now horrified at them being cautious about letting us all out again - I must be one of a a small number on here who was angry about the former but can understand the latter
It's quite bizarre and almost hysterical the way people are over-reacting to the Government being cautious. At this point we have a hugely successful vaccine programme but no-one can know yet , for example, how long the vaccines will provide protection and there is still some uncertainty about the potential impact of variants and the extent to which transmission is controlled. All of the signs are good but it would be wilfully irresponsible of any government to declare it's all over and let's all party! Obviously I can understand how exhausted people are - personally I have at least 2 months to wait for a vaccine here in Spain so I do get it. However, I see people here displaying the traits of the very worst of the crappy journalists. Cyclefree's declaration that now she's being jabbed the government can get stuffed was just one of the appalling and least sensitive comments, but she is not alone.
We do know the answer to many of those questions, though.
For a start, the people on the clinical trials are still being studied, and there doesn't seem to be any let up in protection for people on the Pfizer jab. (Bear in mind some of these people had their first shot 10 or 11 months ago now) If protection was going to fade quickly, we'd see it in the numbers from the trials
Secondly, we know that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is not dented by either Kent or Saffer Covid. There is some diminution in efficacy for AZ for the SA variant (although that is likely overstated by the very limited trial), but the other vaccines seem to also be pretty good against it.
Thirdly, we can look at Israel, They're a little ahead of us (and the AZ vaccine takes longer to cash its protective halo), but they are now essentially fully open to travel and their nightclubs are now booming. If there is a variant that can completely evade the vaccines, we'll see it soon enough there.
*** ALERT. The following rambling post contains doomporn
I don’t think anyone can know what is going to happen.
Why was the cautious Downing Street briefing predicting a third wave to hit UK? And why is that even deemed controversial? I haven’t come here to knock them, because we can’t just nod when we agree with what they say, sit on our nodding when we don’t, unless Unless Science itself does help with problems but not with 100% record to make us know for sure what happens. I’m not as convinced as I had become the vaccines are going to bring this to an end anytime soon and the roadmap is leading to any end to COVID spikes and lockdowns. It all died back last year without vaccines.
The problems on the next phase I think is, 2nd and 3rd time of getting covid, where you can feel more sick than the other time and maybe even more chance of long covid the second and third time of getting sick with it, which, crucially, brings with it the issue of work age population not being able to work. The economic disaster bit of the pandemic could be yet to come.
My guess now is we are going into a lull between lockdown, also pandemic enters new phase where we try to live with it as normal as possible, yet the long covid casualties start mounting up into economic damage so all the countries go broke.
So, your view is that vaccines suddenly stop working?
It’s exactly the sort of glib one liners like yours I received back that could actually prove something is missing from the discussion. Let me explain it like this, then you could actually say wether you can see the point I am making.
Do I believe vaccines work? Is that vaccination programmes in general or just this one? I believe in general that vaccination is a great breakthrough in human science. So about covid vaccine? What do you mean work? That it makes covid disappear? If so, in what sort of timeframe
Is it really fiction for me to say the briefing today offered up potential or even likelihood of third wave in UK?
And one for you if I may. Would you put the risk, that while we come out of lockdown and try to cohabit with covid, the risk to the working population getting long covid and hurting the economy is zero - it’s such a silly point I am making it shouldn’t even be brought up and bottom out?
The risk is not zero.
This is a case of measuring benefit and cost.
Every year in the UK, more than 150,000 people are injured in road accidents and almost 2,000 people die.
What if I said there was a simple policy that could cut road deaths by 99% and accidents by more than 75%? What if I said it would reduce fossil fuel emissions? And make the streets quieter?
All we need to do is to reduce speed limits everywhere to just 15 miles per hour. That's it! It would dramatically cut accident rates and road deaths.
Now, it would of course be a massive inconvenience to people. But it would avoid many, many people suffering the lingering effects of road traffic accidents.
We - as a society - have decided that we want the economic activity that comes with being able to get people at reasonably rapid rates. It comes with a cost, of course, in terms of pollution, accidents, and the like. But we've decided that price is worth it.
There are costs to having Covid restrictions, in terms of mental and physical health, and in terms of diminished economic activity.
The rise of vaccines, and their extraordinary ability (as evidenced in Israel) to allow an essentially complete return to normal life is something to be celebrated. Now, we can disagree about the right pace of removing restrictions, but at some point they need to go.
And we can simply watch Israel here, as they will have opened up around three months before us. If cases start to rise there, and in new variants take hold, well we'll get plenty of warning. Because they are the first mover here, and we're just following in their footsteps.
Here's another one:
The vast majority of violent crime is committed by males between the ages of 15 and 30. If you put an ankle tag on all of them to monitor what they were doing, or even put them in an institution for that time, you'd get rid of most violent crime. And since the majority of the population is not in that category, it's possible it could get a democratic endorsement under the right circumstances.
I don't get why so many people were ok with the govt locking us indoors for a year and are now horrified at them being cautious about letting us all out again - I must be one of a a small number on here who was angry about the former but can understand the latter
It's quite bizarre and almost hysterical the way people are over-reacting to the Government being cautious. At this point we have a hugely successful vaccine programme but no-one can know yet , for example, how long the vaccines will provide protection and there is still some uncertainty about the potential impact of variants and the extent to which transmission is controlled. All of the signs are good but it would be wilfully irresponsible of any government to declare it's all over and let's all party! Obviously I can understand how exhausted people are - personally I have at least 2 months to wait for a vaccine here in Spain so I do get it. However, I see people here displaying the traits of the very worst of the crappy journalists. Cyclefree's declaration that now she's being jabbed the government can get stuffed was just one of the appalling and least sensitive comments, but she is not alone.
We do know the answer to many of those questions, though.
For a start, the people on the clinical trials are still being studied, and there doesn't seem to be any let up in protection for people on the Pfizer jab. (Bear in mind some of these people had their first shot 10 or 11 months ago now) If protection was going to fade quickly, we'd see it in the numbers from the trials
Secondly, we know that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is not dented by either Kent or Saffer Covid. There is some diminution in efficacy for AZ for the SA variant (although that is likely overstated by the very limited trial), but the other vaccines seem to also be pretty good against it.
Thirdly, we can look at Israel, They're a little ahead of us (and the AZ vaccine takes longer to cash its protective halo), but they are now essentially fully open to travel and their nightclubs are now booming. If there is a variant that can completely evade the vaccines, we'll see it soon enough there.
*** ALERT. The following rambling post contains doomporn
I don’t think anyone can know what is going to happen.
Why was the cautious Downing Street briefing predicting a third wave to hit UK? And why is that even deemed controversial? I haven’t come here to knock them, because we can’t just nod when we agree with what they say, sit on our nodding when we don’t, unless Unless Science itself does help with problems but not with 100% record to make us know for sure what happens. I’m not as convinced as I had become the vaccines are going to bring this to an end anytime soon and the roadmap is leading to any end to COVID spikes and lockdowns. It all died back last year without vaccines.
The problems on the next phase I think is, 2nd and 3rd time of getting covid, where you can feel more sick than the other time and maybe even more chance of long covid the second and third time of getting sick with it, which, crucially, brings with it the issue of work age population not being able to work. The economic disaster bit of the pandemic could be yet to come.
My guess now is we are going into a lull between lockdown, also pandemic enters new phase where we try to live with it as normal as possible, yet the long covid casualties start mounting up into economic damage so all the countries go broke.
So, your view is that vaccines suddenly stop working?
It’s exactly the sort of glib one liners like yours I received back that could actually prove something is missing from the discussion. Let me explain it like this, then you could actually say wether you can see the point I am making.
Do I believe vaccines work? Is that vaccination programmes in general or just this one? I believe in general that vaccination is a great breakthrough in human science. So about covid vaccine? What do you mean work? That it makes covid disappear? If so, in what sort of timeframe
Is it really fiction for me to say the briefing today offered up potential or even likelihood of third wave in UK?
And one for you if I may. Would you put the risk, that while we come out of lockdown and try to cohabit with covid, the risk to the working population getting long covid and hurting the economy is zero - it’s such a silly point I am making it shouldn’t even be brought up and bottom out?
The risk is not zero.
This is a case of measuring benefit and cost.
Every year in the UK, more than 150,000 people are injured in road accidents and almost 2,000 people die.
What if I said there was a simple policy that could cut road deaths by 99% and accidents by more than 75%? What if I said it would reduce fossil fuel emissions? And make the streets quieter?
All we need to do is to reduce speed limits everywhere to just 15 miles per hour. That's it! It would dramatically cut accident rates and road deaths.
Now, it would of course be a massive inconvenience to people. But it would avoid many, many people suffering the lingering effects of road traffic accidents.
We - as a society - have decided that we want the economic activity that comes with being able to get people at reasonably rapid rates. It comes with a cost, of course, in terms of pollution, accidents, and the like. But we've decided that price is worth it.
There are costs to having Covid restrictions, in terms of mental and physical health, and in terms of diminished economic activity.
The rise of vaccines, and their extraordinary ability (as evidenced in Israel) to allow an essentially complete return to normal life is something to be celebrated. Now, we can disagree about the right pace of removing restrictions, but at some point they need to go.
And we can simply watch Israel here, as they will have opened up around three months before us. If cases start to rise there, and in new variants take hold, well we'll get plenty of warning. Because they are the first mover here, and we're just following in their footsteps.
You'd just trade road deaths for pollution deaths, at least until an all-electric national fleet. The only way it would be enforceable would be speed limiters fitted to every engine. 15 mph is not the most efficient speed for fuel use. Each journey would last far longer than it need, at pollution-spewing inefficient speeds. There'd be city-centre gridlock - and even 15mph would be unachievable for many. Ambulances wouldn't get their critical cases to hospital so people would die in transit.
It would be abandoned within the week. What we have is a reasonable balance. The flip side is suggesting everyone should drive twice as fast. You would half the number of road hours. The number of accidents would be less - but be of far greater severity when they did happen.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Blair was also a London lawyer and managed to win the Midlands and Red Wall
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
I agree. Might seem an odd question but do Labour's rules require leadership nominees to be MPs or can they be Lords?
I am serious about Jo Rowling. She'd wipe the floor with all of them if she wanted to.
JK Rowling's been cancelled for wrongthink - you'd have more chance getting Jacob Rees-Mogg elected Labour leader.
That the British left are so pre-occupied with fluff that they elevate the likes of Angela Rayner above JK Rowling is why there's no prospect of a competitive election for at least another cycle but probably two. And why ill thought through policies like today's can be railroaded through by the likes of Gove, with only a murmur of opposition from anyone.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
I don't get why so many people were ok with the govt locking us indoors for a year and are now horrified at them being cautious about letting us all out again - I must be one of a a small number on here who was angry about the former but can understand the latter
It's quite bizarre and almost hysterical the way people are over-reacting to the Government being cautious. At this point we have a hugely successful vaccine programme but no-one can know yet , for example, how long the vaccines will provide protection and there is still some uncertainty about the potential impact of variants and the extent to which transmission is controlled. All of the signs are good but it would be wilfully irresponsible of any government to declare it's all over and let's all party! Obviously I can understand how exhausted people are - personally I have at least 2 months to wait for a vaccine here in Spain so I do get it. However, I see people here displaying the traits of the very worst of the crappy journalists. Cyclefree's declaration that now she's being jabbed the government can get stuffed was just one of the appalling and least sensitive comments, but she is not alone.
We do know the answer to many of those questions, though.
For a start, the people on the clinical trials are still being studied, and there doesn't seem to be any let up in protection for people on the Pfizer jab. (Bear in mind some of these people had their first shot 10 or 11 months ago now) If protection was going to fade quickly, we'd see it in the numbers from the trials
Secondly, we know that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is not dented by either Kent or Saffer Covid. There is some diminution in efficacy for AZ for the SA variant (although that is likely overstated by the very limited trial), but the other vaccines seem to also be pretty good against it.
Thirdly, we can look at Israel, They're a little ahead of us (and the AZ vaccine takes longer to cash its protective halo), but they are now essentially fully open to travel and their nightclubs are now booming. If there is a variant that can completely evade the vaccines, we'll see it soon enough there.
*** ALERT. The following rambling post contains doomporn
I don’t think anyone can know what is going to happen.
Why was the cautious Downing Street briefing predicting a third wave to hit UK? And why is that even deemed controversial? I haven’t come here to knock them, because we can’t just nod when we agree with what they say, sit on our nodding when we don’t, unless Unless Science itself does help with problems but not with 100% record to make us know for sure what happens. I’m not as convinced as I had become the vaccines are going to bring this to an end anytime soon and the roadmap is leading to any end to COVID spikes and lockdowns. It all died back last year without vaccines.
The problems on the next phase I think is, 2nd and 3rd time of getting covid, where you can feel more sick than the other time and maybe even more chance of long covid the second and third time of getting sick with it, which, crucially, brings with it the issue of work age population not being able to work. The economic disaster bit of the pandemic could be yet to come.
My guess now is we are going into a lull between lockdown, also pandemic enters new phase where we try to live with it as normal as possible, yet the long covid casualties start mounting up into economic damage so all the countries go broke.
So, your view is that vaccines suddenly stop working?
It’s exactly the sort of glib one liners like yours I received back that could actually prove something is missing from the discussion. Let me explain it like this, then you could actually say wether you can see the point I am making.
Do I believe vaccines work? Is that vaccination programmes in general or just this one? I believe in general that vaccination is a great breakthrough in human science. So about covid vaccine? What do you mean work? That it makes covid disappear? If so, in what sort of timeframe
Is it really fiction for me to say the briefing today offered up potential or even likelihood of third wave in UK?
And one for you if I may. Would you put the risk, that while we come out of lockdown and try to cohabit with covid, the risk to the working population getting long covid and hurting the economy is zero - it’s such a silly point I am making it shouldn’t even be brought up and bottom out?
The risk is not zero.
This is a case of measuring benefit and cost.
Every year in the UK, more than 150,000 people are injured in road accidents and almost 2,000 people die.
What if I said there was a simple policy that could cut road deaths by 99% and accidents by more than 75%? What if I said it would reduce fossil fuel emissions? And make the streets quieter?
All we need to do is to reduce speed limits everywhere to just 15 miles per hour. That's it! It would dramatically cut accident rates and road deaths.
Now, it would of course be a massive inconvenience to people. But it would avoid many, many people suffering the lingering effects of road traffic accidents.
We - as a society - have decided that we want the economic activity that comes with being able to get people at reasonably rapid rates. It comes with a cost, of course, in terms of pollution, accidents, and the like. But we've decided that price is worth it.
There are costs to having Covid restrictions, in terms of mental and physical health, and in terms of diminished economic activity.
The rise of vaccines, and their extraordinary ability (as evidenced in Israel) to allow an essentially complete return to normal life is something to be celebrated. Now, we can disagree about the right pace of removing restrictions, but at some point they need to go.
And we can simply watch Israel here, as they will have opened up around three months before us. If cases start to rise there, and in new variants take hold, well we'll get plenty of warning. Because they are the first mover here, and we're just following in their footsteps.
You'd just trade road deaths for pollution deaths, at least until an all-electric national fleet. The only way it would be enforceable would be speed limiters fitted to every engine. 15 mph is not the most efficient speed for fuel use. Each journey would last far longer than it need, at pollution-spewing inefficient speeds. There'd be city-centre gridlock - and even 15mph would be unachievable for many. Ambulances wouldn't get their critical cases to hospital so people would die in transit.
It would be abandoned within the week. What we have is a reasonable balance. The flip side is suggesting everyone should drive twice as fast. You would half the number of road hours. The number of accidents would be less - but be of far greater severity when they did happen.
But there are some serious questions to be asked of the Civil Service too. Jeremy Heywood, according to the emails, played a key role in this. Was what he did proper and ethical? And if not what steps are being taken to ensure something like this won't happen again? After all, there is lots of potentially very profitable business being considered in government right now.
How can we be certain that what happened with Greensill is not happening now?
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Well it is Survation and in the Times tomorrow so let's see the results first
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Blair was also a London lawyer and managed to win the Midlands and Red Wall
The previous poll showed Labour with a 3% lead in Hartlepool. I'd assumed things has slightly deteriorated for the Tories since then, so it's surprising to hear they're ahead in this new poll.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
What's more. Not sure "decisive Tory win" narrative is quite what the Conservatives would want right now.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
I agree. Might seem an odd question but do Labour's rules require leadership nominees to be MPs or can they be Lords?
I am serious about Jo Rowling. She'd wipe the floor with all of them if she wanted to.
JK Rowling's been cancelled for wrongthink - you'd have more chance getting Jacob Rees-Mogg elected Labour leader.
That the British left are so pre-occupied with fluff that they elevate the likes of Angela Rayner above JK Rowling is why there's no prospect of a competitive election for at least another cycle but probably two. And why ill thought through policies like today's can be railroaded through by the likes of Gove, with only a murmur of opposition from anyone.
My recollection is that JK Rowling is very protective of her family and values her privacy, and that of her husband and her children very highly.
So, she is not well-suited for a job at the top of modern politics, where you can have zero such expectation (even with a super-injunction).
The previous poll showed Labour with a 3% lead in Hartlepool. I'd assumed things has slightly deteriorated for the Tories since then, so it's surprising to hear they're ahead in this new poll.
The previous poll showed Labour with a 3% lead in Hartlepool. I'd assumed things has slightly deteriorated for the Tories since then, so it's surprising to hear they're ahead in this new poll.
The Times is reporting decisively ahead
Yes, I look forward to seeing the figures, hopefully in the next hour or so.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
Caveated if, but IF the Tories do win Hartlepool, it suggests that Red Wall polling showing Labour storming back there is the outlier.....
Labour got a lower voteshare in Hartlepool than in seats the Tories held like Chingford, it was only the large BXP vote splitting the Tory vote that enabled them to hold it so I don't think it tells us much other than that the Leave vote is united behind Boris.
Also the by election will be overshadowed by the local, London and Scottish and Welsh elections on the same day so if Labour make some gains in the county council elections, win London by a large margin and hold on in Wales and improve in Scotland they can brush off a loss
The previous poll showed Labour with a 3% lead in Hartlepool. I'd assumed things has slightly deteriorated for the Tories since then, so it's surprising to hear they're ahead in this new poll.
But there are some serious questions to be asked of the Civil Service too. Jeremy Heywood, according to the emails, played a key role in this. Was what he did proper and ethical? And if not what steps are being taken to ensure something like this won't happen again? After all, there is lots of potentially very profitable business being considered in government right now.
How can we be certain that what happened with Greensill is not happening now?
Given what we have seen on COVID contracts being awarded to mates and donors it's almost a certainty it is happening.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
What proportion of Millenials even have a landline? Everyone I know uses their mobile exclusively for calls, at least as far as I know, landlines are just an inconvenience which is why I won't plug a phone in the socket even if the line rental is paid for - if someone wants to get hold of me they'll send me a message or have my number, typically the former.
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
I agree. Might seem an odd question but do Labour's rules require leadership nominees to be MPs or can they be Lords?
I am serious about Jo Rowling. She'd wipe the floor with all of them if she wanted to.
JK Rowling's been cancelled for wrongthink - you'd have more chance getting Jacob Rees-Mogg elected Labour leader.
That the British left are so pre-occupied with fluff that they elevate the likes of Angela Rayner above JK Rowling is why there's no prospect of a competitive election for at least another cycle but probably two. And why ill thought through policies like today's can be railroaded through by the likes of Gove, with only a murmur of opposition from anyone.
My recollection is that JK Rowling is very protective of her family and values her privacy, and that of her husband and her children very highly.
So, she is not well-suited for a job at the top of modern politics, where you can have zero such expectation (even with a super-injunction).
A shame. The best leaders are the ones who don’t seek it of course.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Blair was also a London lawyer and managed to win the Midlands and Red Wall
He was Scottish....
Not as much as Brown who was beaten in 2010
Brown was arguably more unelectable than Jeremy Corbyn.
Trying to imagine the scale of the Tory win if it had been Brown v Boris. Some people are just not ever going to get voted in, regardless of how planet-sized their brain might be. Because they have Nokia-flinging fits when their brilliance isn't acknowledged.
Labour can trace many of their problems to Brown's coronation. History could be seriously different if Brown hadn't had his inner circle trashing the prospects of anyone who might have been a threat to him.
Whilst we are imagining, think of a 2010 General Election where it was PM Darling who had saved the world..... Different outcome.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
What proportion of Millenials even have a landline? Everyone I know uses their mobile exclusively for calls, at least as far as I know, landlines are just an inconvenience which is why I won't plug a phone in the socket even if the line rental is paid for - if someone wants to get hold of me they'll send me a message or have my number, typically the former.
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
Our landline is now just a dedicated fax line. Yes, we still have a fax. Wife needs it for work.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
There aren’t any. Corbyn saw to that.
I think we all forget what an utter mess Starmer was left with. It will take some time, and after Brexit and a pandemic, boring and relatively sensible may just do it.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
What proportion of Millenials even have a landline? Everyone I know uses their mobile exclusively for calls, at least as far as I know, landlines are just an inconvenience which is why I won't plug a phone in the socket even if the line rental is paid for - if someone wants to get hold of me they'll send me a message or have my number, typically the former.
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
I'm a Boomer not a Millenniallllll, I haven't had a plugged-in landline for about five years.
Roughly the same time has elapsed since I last bought a physical newspaper (except perhaps in a couple of holiday cottages when I needed paper to burn in the hearth, as kindling).
The idea of sitting and reading a dead tree paper, getting ink on my hands, seems as sensible as sitting in a plane with everyone smoking all around me
It is amazing how quickly we adapt to the future, making the recent past seem utterly historic
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
What proportion of Millenials even have a landline? Everyone I know uses their mobile exclusively for calls, at least as far as I know, landlines are just an inconvenience which is why I won't plug a phone in the socket even if the line rental is paid for - if someone wants to get hold of me they'll send me a message or have my number, typically the former.
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
The previous poll showed Labour with a 3% lead in Hartlepool. I'd assumed things has slightly deteriorated for the Tories since then, so it's surprising to hear they're ahead in this new poll.
That was not a poll of Hartlepool but mere extrapolating from a MRP survey of Red Wall seats.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Blair was also a London lawyer and managed to win the Midlands and Red Wall
He was Scottish....
Not as much as Brown who was beaten in 2010
Brown was arguably more unelectable than Jeremy Corbyn.
Trying to imagine the scale of the Tory win if it had been Brown v Boris. Some people are just not ever going to get voted in, regardless of how planet-sized their brain might be. Because they have Nokia-flinging fits when their brilliance isn't acknowledged.
Labour can trace many of their problems to Brown's coronation. History could be seriously different if Brown hadn't had his inner circle trashing the prospects of anyone who might have been a threat to him.
Whilst we are imagining, think of a 2010 General Election where it was PM Darling who had saved the world..... Different outcome.
Brown had 10 point poll leads when he took over as PM in 2007, he also did not lose the 2010 election but got a hung parliament, Corbyn produced a Tory majority of 80 in 2019
But there are some serious questions to be asked of the Civil Service too. Jeremy Heywood, according to the emails, played a key role in this. Was what he did proper and ethical? And if not what steps are being taken to ensure something like this won't happen again? After all, there is lots of potentially very profitable business being considered in government right now.
How can we be certain that what happened with Greensill is not happening now?
Given what we have seen on COVID contracts being awarded to mates and donors it's almost a certainty it is happening.
Which will reflect badly on the civil service if any of the top advisors are behaving like Heywood apparently did.
I know he's dead and cannot give his side of the story. He may be a casualty of the desire to get Cameron. But were he alive he too would have questions to answer. What are the Civil Service rules, if any, around this, I wonder?
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
Caveated if, but IF the Tories do win Hartlepool, it suggests that Red Wall polling showing Labour storming back there is the outlier.....
Labour got a lower voteshare in Hartlepool than in seats the Tories held like Chingford, it was only the large BXP vote splitting the Tory vote that enabled them to hold it so I don't think it tells us much other than that the Leave vote is united behind Boris.
Also the by election will be overshadowed by the local, London and Scottish and Welsh elections on the same day so if Labour make some gains in the county council elections, win London by a large margin and hold on in Wales and improve in Scotland they can brush off a loss
But Labour losing Hartlepool gives them a bastard headache - which seats do they try and attack and which do they defend next time? If they go for power rather than reducing Tory seats of the next Tory government, they could waste their entire seat spend. Tories can defend 100 seats. Labour has to attack 100 seats. They can end up losing the next tier of Hartlepools if they do that.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
What proportion of Millenials even have a landline? Everyone I know uses their mobile exclusively for calls, at least as far as I know, landlines are just an inconvenience which is why I won't plug a phone in the socket even if the line rental is paid for - if someone wants to get hold of me they'll send me a message or have my number, typically the former.
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
As long as it is not zero you'll eventually find them. I'm just saying how you get a representative sample, by weighting.
The previous poll showed Labour with a 3% lead in Hartlepool. I'd assumed things has slightly deteriorated for the Tories since then, so it's surprising to hear they're ahead in this new poll.
That was not a poll of Hartlepool but mere extrapolating from a MRP survey of Red Wall seats.
MRP has been pretty impressive in the UK. Not so much in the United States.
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
I would take that with a mound of salt. By-election polls are notoriously difficult at the best of times, let alone doing a phone poll in 2021 on Easter Bank Holiday weekend.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
Wouldn't they weight each respondent by the demographics of the seat? Of course that would make demographics with low response rates noisier.
What proportion of Millenials even have a landline? Everyone I know uses their mobile exclusively for calls, at least as far as I know, landlines are just an inconvenience which is why I won't plug a phone in the socket even if the line rental is paid for - if someone wants to get hold of me they'll send me a message or have my number, typically the former.
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
Pollsters phone mobiles too.
For national polls I can see how that works, but how does that work for constituency by-elections?
For landlines you can dial random numbers that will belong to that constituency due to area codes and sub area codes, but that technique won't work for mobiles. Unless there's a database of phone numbers linked to each constituency but I'm not aware of any such thing.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Blair was also a London lawyer and managed to win the Midlands and Red Wall
He was Scottish....
Not as much as Brown who was beaten in 2010
Brown was arguably more unelectable than Jeremy Corbyn.
Trying to imagine the scale of the Tory win if it had been Brown v Boris. Some people are just not ever going to get voted in, regardless of how planet-sized their brain might be. Because they have Nokia-flinging fits when their brilliance isn't acknowledged.
Labour can trace many of their problems to Brown's coronation. History could be seriously different if Brown hadn't had his inner circle trashing the prospects of anyone who might have been a threat to him.
Whilst we are imagining, think of a 2010 General Election where it was PM Darling who had saved the world..... Different outcome.
Brown had 10 point poll leads when he took over as PM in 2007, he also did not lose the 2010 election but got a hung parliament, Corbyn produced a Tory majority of 80 in 2019
The removals van taking your stuff out of Downing Street = election loser...
Phone poll on a bank holiday weekend....that doesn't sound ideal for gathering opinion.
Times reporting that Boris Johnson in on course for a decisive by election win in Hartlepool
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
Caveated if, but IF the Tories do win Hartlepool, it suggests that Red Wall polling showing Labour storming back there is the outlier.....
Labour got a lower voteshare in Hartlepool than in seats the Tories held like Chingford, it was only the large BXP vote splitting the Tory vote that enabled them to hold it so I don't think it tells us much other than that the Leave vote is united behind Boris.
Also the by election will be overshadowed by the local, London and Scottish and Welsh elections on the same day so if Labour make some gains in the county council elections, win London by a large margin and hold on in Wales and improve in Scotland they can brush off a loss
But Labour losing Hartlepool gives them a bastard headache - which seats do they try and attack and which do they defend next time? If they go for power rather than reducing Tory seats of the next Tory government, they could waste their entire seat spend. Tories can defend 100 seats. Labour has to attack 100 seats. They can end up losing the next tier of Hartlepools if they do that.
Hartlepool was 69% Leave, the UK was only 52% Leave, on paper Hartlepool should have been a comfortable Tory gain in 2019, only the BXP getting 25% in the seat saved Labour there in 2019
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
There aren’t any. Corbyn saw to that.
I think we all forget what an utter mess Starmer was left with. It will take some time, and after Brexit and a pandemic, boring and relatively sensible may just do it.
Starmer is, we should not forget, quite an inexperienced politician. Only in Parliament since 2015. No doubt he has been in the Labour Party for longer but given that he spent most of that time under Corbyn painfully triangulating an incomprehensible policy on Brexit, he's not really had time to learn all the other essential political skills a leader needs. Like working out what he believes in and how to persuade people.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
The only Labour figure who might have done better than Starmer is Chuka Umunna, who is similar ideologically but more charismatic.
Unfortunately for Labour he left for the LDs and is now working as a corporate adviser
That’s a good point - I always thought he should be Labour Leader. He would be doing much better in my view
Chuka was just another smug London politico. He would not have connected with the Midlands, still less with Red Wall Labour. Labour needs somebody from Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle who would not flinch from kicking Boris in the bollocks (politically).
Angela Rayner...and as Deputy she gets the gig for some months during a contest.
Angela Rayner is ghastly, appallingly rude in the Commons and barely has a GCSE, even Corbyn was better than she would be
I think your class prejudice is showing.
As if Johnson is never rude!
It isn't, someone like Alan Johnson came from an even harder background than Rayner but unlike her he has manners and some intelligence.
Boris has wit and brains too unlike Rayner who is just rude and uncouth
LAB would finish third if Rayner were leader. All of LAB's metro elite support would disappear and Rayner has no credibility among the British progressive working class who have moved away from LAB and are trending to CON long term.
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
I'm sure the polling companies know this and adjust the results accordingly to take account of young people. They aren't that stupid.
Don't people use a landline for their broadband access, or am I even more out-of-date than I'd thought.
With Virgin (cable) broadband you don't need a landline.
As I mentioned above, you don’t need to plug in a phone to use FTTC or copper broadband. I would guess the majority of customers under 45 don’t use the landline ever.
With FTTP by default there’s no phone line at all.
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
Don't people use a landline for their broadband access, or am I even more out-of-date than I'd thought.
Well yes, I have a landline for my broadband, but that's it. The cable coming from router is plugged into the wall adaptor. The phone socket part of that adaptor is empty with nothing plugged into it. If there's no phone physically connected, then you can't call it, I see no reason to use a phone tethered to a wall instead of the one in my pocket so why plug a phone into it?
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
My apologies, I should have said most don’t. I would think it’s 90/10, haven’t seen the stats lately but it’s low. Very low.
Don't people use a landline for their broadband access, or am I even more out-of-date than I'd thought.
You don’t need to plug the phone in.
We have a phone number here but we’ve never plugged in a phone. We don’t even own one.
Same here never had a landline phone plugged into the socket and my mobile only accepts calls from people on my contact list so pollsters have no chance of getting hold of me
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
My apologies, I should have said most don’t. I would think it’s 90/10, haven’t seen the stats lately but it’s low. Very low.
25% of 18-34yo have one. So probably a touch higher for under-40s.
You don’t need a phone to use broadband. Once again, you don’t need to even plug in the phone...
It's charged as line rental, if I remember correctly?
I pay line rental to Sky as part of my package, yes. I'm renting the line for the broadband, not for telephone services though. So the router is plugged in, no phone is plugged in. Line rental sans phone won't enable calls.
If I was to ever get a phone and plug it in I'd get free calls as part of my package too - but I get free calls and texts on my mobile as part of my package too (also Sky) so why would I want to do that?
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
My apologies, I should have said most don’t. I would think it’s 90/10, haven’t seen the stats lately but it’s low. Very low.
25% of 18-34yo have one. So probably a touch higher for under-40s.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
There aren’t any. Corbyn saw to that.
I think we all forget what an utter mess Starmer was left with. It will take some time, and after Brexit and a pandemic, boring and relatively sensible may just do it.
Starmer is, we should not forget, quite an inexperienced politician. Only in Parliament since 2015. No doubt he has been in the Labour Party for longer but given that he spent most of that time under Corbyn painfully triangulating an incomprehensible policy on Brexit, he's not really had time to learn all the other essential political skills a leader needs. Like working out what he believes in and how to persuade people.
My own view is that is was Starmer’s refusal to accept the referendum result that gave Boris the opportunity to win as big as he did in 2019.
Remainers want the blame to be at Corbyn’s door, despite the 41% he got in 2017 when Labour accepted Brexit, and they can’t be seen to be praising Boris for being successful. I think that is why there is such a reluctance to talk about how poorly Sir Keir is doing - it is tantamount to admitting that it might have been the popularity of Brexit & Boris, not the unpopularity of Jez, wot won it for the Tories, and that won’t do
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
My apologies, I should have said most don’t. I would think it’s 90/10, haven’t seen the stats lately but it’s low. Very low.
25% of 18-34yo have one. So probably a touch higher for under-40s.
The problem pollsters have with constituency polling isn't people not having landlines it is that far too many people don't answer the phone from a withheld or a number the person doesn't recognise.
That level of rejection can be managed with nationwide/regional polls, it is a real issue for constituency polls.
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
My apologies, I should have said most don’t. I would think it’s 90/10, haven’t seen the stats lately but it’s low. Very low.
25% of 18-34yo have one. So probably a touch higher for under-40s.
Interestingly, it has landline ownership at 50% for the population as a whole.
I undoubtedly show as a + in the landline stats, doesn't mean I have a landline you can ring though so some caution is needed on those stats.....I even know the phone number for it and use it when I absolutely have to give a phone number.....you will never get it to actually ring though
In regards phone polls, they clearly don’t really get anyone under the age of about 40 since we don’t use landlines. However, does it really matter since we don’t vote anyway?
Hello ! Person under 40 with a landline. We exist, where mobile reception is sh*t. Haven’t voted since 2016, though that’s due to postal voting failures by the council rather than apathy.
My apologies, I should have said most don’t. I would think it’s 90/10, haven’t seen the stats lately but it’s low. Very low.
25% of 18-34yo have one. So probably a touch higher for under-40s.
Interestingly, it has landline ownership at 50% for the population as a whole.
Actually that’s just how many pay line rental from a brief look. Those with phones plugged in and actively on I suspect is a lot lower.
It says its how many have and use the landline.
I pay line rental but don't use it, so would fall within the 75%. Actually I wouldn't since under 40 but not under 35 they've done as the cut-off, that makes me feel old now.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
I have to say there is a serious lack of talent on the opposition benches. Not a single MP stands out as being able to take the fight to the government. All spineless.
One of Starmers biggest flaws is the team he has around him. A lot of the big hitters are on the back benches, or in low grade shadow jobs.
Banging on about LGBT on Twitter rather than opposing some of the worst and most significant policy of recent decades?
I'm giving up on Starmer. He's just not up to it.
I was never convinced. I think that next year, unless there is a major turnaround he should step down.
Who do you think would or should replace him?
I am not a member (though Mrs Foxy is) so I don't get a say. Personally I like Angela Rayner, who is a deft politician and could be quite a difficult one for Johnson. She is a smart cookie, one should never mistake lack of formal education for lack of intelligence.
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Who are Labour's "big hitters"?
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
There aren’t any. Corbyn saw to that.
I think we all forget what an utter mess Starmer was left with. It will take some time, and after Brexit and a pandemic, boring and relatively sensible may just do it.
Starmer is, we should not forget, quite an inexperienced politician. Only in Parliament since 2015. No doubt he has been in the Labour Party for longer but given that he spent most of that time under Corbyn painfully triangulating an incomprehensible policy on Brexit, he's not really had time to learn all the other essential political skills a leader needs. Like working out what he believes in and how to persuade people.
My own view is that is was Starmer’s refusal to accept the referendum result that gave Boris the opportunity to win as big as he did in 2019.
Remainers want the blame to be at Corbyn’s door, despite the 41% he got in 2017 when Labour accepted Brexit, and they can’t be seen to be praising Boris for being successful. I think that is why there is such a reluctance to talk about how poorly Sir Keir is doing - it is tantamount to admitting that it might have been the popularity of Brexit & Boris, not the unpopularity of Jez, wot won it for the Tories, and that won’t do
On personal polling Starmer is doing better than Miliband and Corbyn, and is performing at around the level of Cameron a year in. He has a lot more Don't Know than most of his predecessors as Leader of the Opposition, no doubt as a result of him being far less visible than they were.
The problem pollsters have with constituency polling isn't people not having landlines it is that far too many people don't answer the phone from a withheld or a number the person doesn't recognise.
That level of rejection can be managed with nationwide/regional polls, it is a real issue for constituency polls.
How do constituency phone polls call mobiles belonging to the constituency, since mobile phone numbers aren't linked to a constituency?
There's no database of constituency phone numbers anywhere is there?
Comments
Yvette Cooper is good on the Liason committee, and her New Labour days are the very distant past now. She has a wit and sparkle that works well and a husband increasingly recognised as a National Treasure.
Do you mean JK Rowling? Has she even had anything to do with the Labour Party in the past decade?
As if Johnson is never rude!
On front page with no detail but must be this poll surely
And not the leftover scraps remaining from Gordon Brown's time of office over a decade ago. When the Tories were getting ready to be capable of regaining office they had big hitters that weren't in Parliament when Major left office like Osborne.
Labour don't just need their Cameron, they need their Osborne and others too. Who is that? It certainly doesn't seem to be Starmer or Dodds.
It would be abandoned within the week. What we have is a reasonable balance. The flip side is suggesting everyone should drive twice as fast. You would half the number of road hours. The number of accidents would be less - but be of far greater severity when they did happen.
https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1365664500637184005
Maybe they replace the communion wafers with E tabs?
Meanwhile, I voted for Lisa Nandy.
Boris has wit and brains too unlike Rayner who is just rude and uncouth
The vast majority of violent crime is committed by males between the ages of 15 and 30. If you put an ankle tag on all of them to monitor what they were doing, or even put them in an institution for that time, you'd get rid of most violent crime. And since the majority of the population is not in that category, it's possible it could get a democratic endorsement under the right circumstances.
How do you even do a constituency phone poll nowadays and get a representative sample? In older times you could dial the local area code and dial a random number but if you do that you'll get a sample with a lot of Boomers and not many Millenials or Gen Z. I haven't had a working landline in about half a dozen years - I have a line we pay line rental for, we use it for the broadband, and even get free calls as part of my package, but there's no phone physically plugged into the socket and I don't even know what the number is for it. My phone number is the same number I had 17 years ago when I was at university not a landline one that came with the house I currently live at.
But there are some serious questions to be asked of the Civil Service too. Jeremy Heywood, according to the emails, played a key role in this. Was what he did proper and ethical? And if not what steps are being taken to ensure something like this won't happen again? After all, there is lots of potentially very profitable business being considered in government right now.
How can we be certain that what happened with Greensill is not happening now?
And it is online
Labour made a huge mistake not electing him leader in 2015
So, she is not well-suited for a job at the top of modern politics, where you can have zero such expectation (even with a super-injunction).
Also the by election will be overshadowed by the local, London and Scottish and Welsh elections on the same day so if Labour make some gains in the county council elections, win London by a large margin and hold on in Wales and improve in Scotland they can brush off a loss
If you do a poll using landlines nowadays would the sample of Millenials that actually take part be remotely representative for those demographics?
Trying to imagine the scale of the Tory win if it had been Brown v Boris. Some people are just not ever going to get voted in, regardless of how planet-sized their brain might be. Because they have Nokia-flinging fits when their brilliance isn't acknowledged.
Labour can trace many of their problems to Brown's coronation. History could be seriously different if Brown hadn't had his inner circle trashing the prospects of anyone who might have been a threat to him.
Whilst we are imagining, think of a 2010 General Election where it was PM Darling who had saved the world..... Different outcome.
I think we all forget what an utter mess Starmer was left with. It will take some time, and after Brexit and a pandemic, boring and relatively sensible may just do it.
Roughly the same time has elapsed since I last bought a physical newspaper (except perhaps in a couple of holiday cottages when I needed paper to burn in the hearth, as kindling).
The idea of sitting and reading a dead tree paper, getting ink on my hands, seems as sensible as sitting in a plane with everyone smoking all around me
It is amazing how quickly we adapt to the future, making the recent past seem utterly historic
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.180699589
I know he's dead and cannot give his side of the story. He may be a casualty of the desire to get Cameron. But were he alive he too would have questions to answer. What are the Civil Service rules, if any, around this, I wonder?
It is a strong identity.
Remainers become ever more divided over time.
Be a long, long time before this all unwinds.
For landlines you can dial random numbers that will belong to that constituency due to area codes and sub area codes, but that technique won't work for mobiles. Unless there's a database of phone numbers linked to each constituency but I'm not aware of any such thing.
Jess Phillips stood in that contest and she was dreadful. It’s odd that people rate her.
We have a phone number here but we’ve never plugged in a phone. We don’t even own one.
BT also a do broadband without the need for a landline.
https://bit.ly/3mpItBk
https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1379194274739331074?s=19
With FTTP by default there’s no phone line at all.
MRPs and/or regional polling is the way to go.
1) Sample size
2) How many of the people in the sample actually gave a VI.
https://www.themoneypages.com/household-bills/third-brits-pay-200-year-landline-dont-use/
Interestingly, it has landline ownership at 50% for the population as a whole.
If I was to ever get a phone and plug it in I'd get free calls as part of my package too - but I get free calls and texts on my mobile as part of my package too (also Sky) so why would I want to do that?
Remainers want the blame to be at Corbyn’s door, despite the 41% he got in 2017 when Labour accepted Brexit, and they can’t be seen to be praising Boris for being successful. I think that is why there is such a reluctance to talk about how poorly Sir Keir is doing - it is tantamount to admitting that it might have been the popularity of Brexit & Boris, not the unpopularity of Jez, wot won it for the Tories, and that won’t do
While 50% of people in the UK currently have and use a landline, that number drops to just under 25% among 18 to 34-year olds.
That level of rejection can be managed with nationwide/regional polls, it is a real issue for constituency polls.
I pay line rental but don't use it, so would fall within the 75%. Actually I wouldn't since under 40 but not under 35 they've done as the cut-off, that makes me feel old now.
There's no database of constituency phone numbers anywhere is there?