I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
The secret of a good sitcom is to make the characters likeable and rounded. Caricatures are only funny briefly.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
Hmm...Favourite is probably the West Wing although I have never met anyone in my entire life as articulate as every single person on a Sorkin show.
Sometimes it really works, The Trial of the Chicago 7 was just superb because of that hyper articulacy.
Clarkson back on the BBC tonight. Wonder whether the trio will be back next year when the Amazon contract finishes. I'm sure that the BBC would have them back in an instant.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
The secret of a good sitcom is to make the characters likeable and rounded. Caricatures are only funny briefly.
Indeed, it's what separates British sitcoms from (most) American ones.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
The secret of a good sitcom is to make the characters likeable and rounded. Caricatures are only funny briefly.
See Parks and Recreation, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Good Place (so most things made by Michael Schur).
It's also why I think the best thing Armando Iannucci has ever made is The Death of Stalin - it makes sense and works for the Soviet Politburo to be caricatures! I shall never think of Marshal Zhukov the same way again.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
The secret of a good sitcom is to make the characters likeable and rounded. Caricatures are only funny briefly.
See Parks and Recreation, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Good Place (so most things made by Michael Schur).
It's also why I think the best thing Armando Iannucci has ever made is The Death of Stalin - it makes sense and works for the Soviet Politburo to be caricatures! I shall never think of Marshal Zhukov the same way again.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
The secret of a good sitcom is to make the characters likeable and rounded. Caricatures are only funny briefly.
See Parks and Recreation, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Good Place (so most things made by Michael Schur).
It's also why I think the best thing Armando Iannucci has ever made is The Death of Stalin - it makes sense and works for the Soviet Politburo to be caricatures! I shall never think of Marshal Zhukov the same way again.
The Death of Stalin also works because the story is demented black comedy
Rather like Dr Strangeglove - it turns itself into a farce, with very little effort from the writers.
Then again -
Georgy Zhukov : Now, it's got to be tomorrow. Nikita Khrushchev : Tomorrow? Georgy Zhukov : Sorry, you busy washing your hair or what? Nikita Khrushchev : Tomorrow's the funeral. Georgy Zhukov : Yeah, the day that the entire fucking Army's in town with their guns.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
The secret of a good sitcom is to make the characters likeable and rounded. Caricatures are only funny briefly.
See Parks and Recreation, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Good Place (so most things made by Michael Schur).
It's also why I think the best thing Armando Iannucci has ever made is The Death of Stalin - it makes sense and works for the Soviet Politburo to be caricatures! I shall never think of Marshal Zhukov the same way again.
I would not vote Labour if they supported the death penalty. Likewise any other party.
Such an idea is a total abomination and must never be reintroduced.
I don't believe the Labour Party would ever adopt such a retrospective policy.
The fact that Labour voters are minded for the reintroduction of capital punishment is nonetheless handy to bear in mind for a struggling Conservative Government, particularly one led by Priti Patel.
I would not vote Labour if they supported the death penalty. Likewise any other party.
Such an idea is a total abomination and must never be reintroduced.
I don't believe the Labour Party would ever adopt such a retrospective policy.
The fact that Labour voters are minded for the reintroduction of capital punishment is nonetheless handy to bear in mind for a struggling Conservative Government, particularly one led by Priti Patel.
I remember participating in the 2015 general election in a borders town. The mention of her name and having influence on labour in Westminster had people in a rage. The perception of a weak Labour government pushed around by Nicola and the SNP was far more damaging to Ed Miliband than his capacity to eat a bacon sandwich.
Unless the one perception fed the other. He did not eat a bacon sandwich like a proper bloke. The way he faffed around, he looked like the sort of pussy who could be bossed around by a woman. And the voters of Middle England didn't like that.
David Milliband stopped us going to war in Syria, for which we should all be hugely grateful.
How about Assad’s victims? Should they be grateful too?
Given that bombs are not famous for their discrimination, I should say so, yes.
I remember participating in the 2015 general election in a borders town. The mention of her name and having influence on labour in Westminster had people in a rage. The perception of a weak Labour government pushed around by Nicola and the SNP was far more damaging to Ed Miliband than his capacity to eat a bacon sandwich.
Unless the one perception fed the other. He did not eat a bacon sandwich like a proper bloke. The way he faffed around, he looked like the sort of pussy who could be bossed around by a woman. And the voters of Middle England didn't like that.
David Milliband stopped us going to war in Syria, for which we should all be hugely grateful.
How about Assad’s victims? Should they be grateful too?
Given that bombs are not famous for their discrimination, I should say so, yes.
Clarkson back on the BBC tonight. Wonder whether the trio will be back next year when the Amazon contract finishes. I'm sure that the BBC would have them back in an instant.
Too old I suspect, everyone involved has made a packet and they probably want to enjoy it. At most I could see a Christmas special for 3-5 years.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
There was a core of decent relatable characters in TTOI- I've got to say Peter Mannion, but Hugh Abbott and Nicola Murray were also in the "decentish but overwhelmed" category, and even characters like Malcom Tucker have got some bizarre kind of integrity; you've just got to dig a long way to find it.
The difference between Yes Minister and TTOI maybe shows the limits of low-cost creative media. With a BBC4 budget (peanuts, and be grateful that they're in the plural) a bright cast can semi-improvise something clever and funny. With a proper BBC1 budget, you get a beautifully-engineered work of genius.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
I suspect there's a reason why Yes, Minister references dominate on this site.
Indeed.
Though for me it is my favourite of the bunch because while the satire of The Thick of It was more biting (if hardly subtle), Yes Minister was more human. Hacker being flawed but generally trying to do the right thing, Humphrey being devious but ruthlessly competent, and Bernard trying to find the middle way, made them more sympathetic and real as people, as opposed to the cariactures of The Thick of It, who to me seemed to exist only to make a particular point. West Wing suffers from the inevitable result of 20+ episodes a season, Borgen was ok but could be dull, and House of Cards etc are just enjoyable trash.
Yes Minister sticks with me more not only because it is so quotable and because of Nigel Hawthorne (though that helps), but because the characters worked (and they got rid of or used sparingly the ones who didn't, like Wiesel), making the points it made more powerful.
Yes Minister is the only British political drama that I've liked - it doesn't quite ring true but it's beautifully judged as gentle satire. House of Cards is just melodramatic rubbish, about as accurate as Outlander is a careful reconstruction of the Scottish Highland clans (I quite like it in small doses, but I know it's rubbish).
Clarkson back on the BBC tonight. Wonder whether the trio will be back next year when the Amazon contract finishes. I'm sure that the BBC would have them back in an instant.
Time has passed. Grand Tour is generally very poor, as are the other shows Amazon have made with them.
I remember participating in the 2015 general election in a borders town. The mention of her name and having influence on labour in Westminster had people in a rage. The perception of a weak Labour government pushed around by Nicola and the SNP was far more damaging to Ed Miliband than his capacity to eat a bacon sandwich.
Unless the one perception fed the other. He did not eat a bacon sandwich like a proper bloke. The way he faffed around, he looked like the sort of pussy who could be bossed around by a woman. And the voters of Middle England didn't like that.
David Milliband stopped us going to war in Syria, for which we should all be hugely grateful.
How about Assad’s victims? Should they be grateful too?
Given that bombs are not famous for their discrimination, I should say so, yes.
It was Ed not David
Yes, others have also spotted this mistake. Very dopey of me.
The death penalty isn’t coming back, under a Tory government or a Labour one. The fact that a far lower proportion of MPs support it than the proportion of the public who support it is a ready-made case study for representative democracy over naked populism.
This is a crucial point with nearly all businesses, and one that is often missed.
Spending government money to bail out shareholders and debt holders is often not necessary to ensure that businesses keep running. In a proper functioning market economy, we simply see new owners of the assets.
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
The obvious solution is to drop the hated Euro name, recast it as GlobalBritainStar and bung amounts of cash in the direction of SNCF. The UK government has already bailed out that Spanish company, British Airways, which does however have the right sort of name.
FPT: Thanks for your thoughts @Foxy and @DavidL I have never considered refusing a vaccine and still wouldn't. The risk of death to me is low in either scenario. But I like to know as much as possible (hence the PB lurking).
Aside from the cold logic of risk/benefit ratios, in terms of human psychology there will be a benefit of being able to say to my elderly relatives/shielding friends 'yes we've all been vaccinated', and see them relax somewhat when eventually we're able to visit them indoors.
Completely agree with that and if the government proves brave enough to go against the consensus on PB and introduce vaccination certificates you want one.
I will get a vaccination certificate if needed...I know I'm in the minority here but I honestly couldn't give a monkeys if I have to scan a QR code to get into an interesting venue. I already store health info on my phone, on Strava, I have a passport and I definitely had to get a vaccine to go abroad (Thailand I think), in the long distant past. What I do find utterly extraordinary, and unprecedented is that it is currently illegal for me to go round the corner to my best friend's house for a cup of tea, and that it has been so for months now. That's the kind of thing that bothers me, and it was inconceivable before last year. Even last spring, I was convinced that the public wouldn't put up with these sort of restrictions beyond June (2020). And yet here we are.
Yet here we are, basic freedoms gone and the public tolerate it - but why? Does just fear account for this or is obedience to authority the thing or what?
A desire to protect the people we love, coupled with a fear of being judged by our peers. I'm instinctively of a liberal persuasion - any rules or impositions on us have to be justified, and the way Covid has teased out and encouraged currents of curtain-twitching, judgemental authoritarianism in so many people is pretty unedifying. I'd happily junk all the rules and masks in the bin - yet for the thought that all of us have vulnerable relatives and shielding friends who are relying on us to make a collective effort. And that goes for me too, even though I've had it and am fit, slim, mostly healthy. So we wait, and wait, and it is dull to wait. Many people can't be bothered to wait any longer (perhaps quietly visiting other vaxxed friends), you can tell from the traffic and activity. But others I know do still stick to the rules, because they know their relatives are counting on them to get their freedom back too. I could name a few who do it out of obedience to authority, but mostly I think it's a social collective thing - the message has sunk in that our actions could negatively affect others, and even if sometimes it might not make much difference, we also fear being judged.
And on a practical self-interested note, most of my peers are also in their 40s and we've all got kids at school, so we've got more of a vested interest in keeping to the rules for a bit longer, compared to the older cohorts who are now vaxxed, and the younger ones who have always been less at risk.
Once we're vaxxed, I hope we go back towards what feels like normality. I could go for a decade of 20's style hedonism right now.
The death penalty isn’t coming back, under a Tory government or a Labour one. The fact that a far lower proportion of MPs support it than the proportion of the public who support it is a ready-made case study for representative democracy over naked populism.
Prime Minister, Priti Patel says hello. (Reintroduced after a referendum?).
I must the only one who finds “politician eats food” stories utterly trite.
I’m thinking of Sir Keir’s fish and chips, Ed’s bacon sarnie and Ozzy’s burger.
Who TF cares?
I do, because it's a relief to talk about apparently trivial shit, as against deadly plague and dry economics. Also this stuff matters: the story of Ursula and The Chair is now everywhere, because it says something about Turkey, men, politics for women, the EU...
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
The obvious solution is to drop the hated Euro name, recast it as GlobalBritainStar and bung amounts of cash in the direction of SNCF. The UK government has already bailed out that Spanish company, British Airways, which does however have the right sort of name.
The death penalty isn’t coming back, under a Tory government or a Labour one. The fact that a far lower proportion of MPs support it than the proportion of the public who support it is a ready-made case study for representative democracy over naked populism.
Prime Minister, Priti Patel says hello. (Reintroduced after a referendum?).
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
The train service will continue running, because the train tracks, the stations and the rolling stock will all continue to exist.
However, the existing investors will lose all their money.
And that's capitalism, folks.
Exactly. The British government has no particular need to subsidise foreign shareholders, when the infrastructure and hardware will all continue to exist tomorrow.
On the critical subject of eating fish and chips, while SKS is guilty of being a slightly dull person in the wrong photo op giving the wrong sort of publicity by going anywhere near eating something, he is doing two things right: He is making sure he doesn't do a Miliband - better to look dull and do nothing than look a bit ridiculous. Boris is about the only senior politician around who does OK out of being a lad and a Bertie Wooster. If you haven't got it you can't put it on.
Secondly, in general as far as he has a strategy it is plainly to wait and hope that the times will come when Boris's wheels come off and everyone notices there is a dull, decent, respectable, uxorious, competent, alternative sort of chap we could elect who probably wouldn't trash the country and isn't nuts, and probably wouldn't sit down before all the ladies are seated. Boris's act could become unamusing if we got 3 million unemployed and 18% inflation. (Though he too would generally not sit down before the ladies are comfortable).
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
The train service will continue running, because the train tracks, the stations and the rolling stock will all continue to exist.
However, the existing investors will lose all their money.
And that's capitalism, folks.
The complication here is that SNCF controls what happens to that hopefully continuingly running train the moment it appears out the tunnel at Calais and they are also losing most money from any bankruptcy. They will need to be onboard with whatever arrangement is eventually arrived at. Which sounds to me like a haggle ...
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
The train service will continue running, because the train tracks, the stations and the rolling stock will all continue to exist.
However, the existing investors will lose all their money.
And that's capitalism, folks.
Exactly. The British government has no particular need to subsidise foreign shareholders, when the infrastructure and hardware will all continue to exist tomorrow.
Yes, transport infrastructure doesn't usually need to bailed out. I don't think we should have bailed out airports either tbh, let them go under and someone else can buy them out of bankruptcy.
I must the only one who finds “politician eats food” stories utterly trite.
I’m thinking of Sir Keir’s fish and chips, Ed’s bacon sarnie and Ozzy’s burger.
Who TF cares?
I do, because it's a relief to talk about apparently trivial shit, as against deadly plague and dry economics. Also this stuff matters: the story of Ursula and The Chair is now everywhere, because it says something about Turkey, men, politics for women, the EU...
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
Except the Tory vote share in St Austell & Newquay increased significantly, and the majority went up by about 3,000, in 2017. So perhaps Theresa May's chip eating style wasn't so off-putting after all?
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
The train service will continue running, because the train tracks, the stations and the rolling stock will all continue to exist.
However, the existing investors will lose all their money.
And that's capitalism, folks.
The complication here is that SNCF controls what happens to that hopefully continuingly running train the moment it appears out the tunnel at Calais and they are also losing most money from any bankruptcy. They will need to be onboard with whatever arrangement is eventually arrived at. Which sounds to me like a haggle ...
That's leverage, folks...
Why? Unless you're suggesting that the French government would petty enough to stop a new private operator from using the French railways. Oh right I see.
I must the only one who finds “politician eats food” stories utterly trite.
I’m thinking of Sir Keir’s fish and chips, Ed’s bacon sarnie and Ozzy’s burger.
Who TF cares?
I do, because it's a relief to talk about apparently trivial shit, as against deadly plague and dry economics. Also this stuff matters: the story of Ursula and The Chair is now everywhere, because it says something about Turkey, men, politics for women, the EU...
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
Except the Tory vote share in St Austell & Newquay increased significantly, and the majority went up by about 3,000, in 2017. So perhaps Theresa May's chip eating style wasn't so off-putting after all?
You maybe missed the other results?
Seriously, when she ate those chips like an autistic, disarticulated android in a lady suit, who had never encountered carbohydrate-based foodstuffs before. that's when I knew she was in deeeeeeep trouble.
Corbyn, for all his immense faults, always looked comfortable in his own skin. Boris always looks like he is enormously enjoying himself, or he is trying to hide the same hedonistic pleasure.
Voters like to find their leaders relatable or cheering or, ideally, both. A leader that makes your teeth grind with embarrassment every time you see her, not so much
In more "despite brexit" news, WB has relaunched it's European animation studio in the UK and not on the continent as some had previously thought would happen.
Random question but if under-30's are going to be offered a non-AZ vaccine, and we're just starting with Moderna, is there a possibility that actually 30-40's will be the last group vaccinated? Just thinking out loud.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
On the critical subject of eating fish and chips, while SKS is guilty of being a slightly dull person in the wrong photo op giving the wrong sort of publicity by going anywhere near eating something, he is doing two things right: He is making sure he doesn't do a Miliband - better to look dull and do nothing than look a bit ridiculous. Boris is about the only senior politician around who does OK out of being a lad and a Bertie Wooster. If you haven't got it you can't put it on.
Secondly, in general as far as he has a strategy it is plainly to wait and hope that the times will come when Boris's wheels come off and everyone notices there is a dull, decent, respectable, uxorious, competent, alternative sort of chap we could elect who probably wouldn't trash the country and isn't nuts, and probably wouldn't sit down before all the ladies are seated. Boris's act could become unamusing if we got 3 million unemployed and 18% inflation. (Though he too would generally not sit down before the ladies are comfortable).
Exactly. When we all tire of Boris, the county will want someone like Keir. And it is "when" not "if". And when we tire of Boris, Instagram Rishi is not going to be enough of a change to satisfy.
The trouble is that having someone like Keir as LotO possibly extends the time before we all tire of Boris.
Random question but if under-30's are going to be offered a non-AZ vaccine, and we're just starting with Moderna, is there a possibility that actually 30-40's will be the last group vaccinated? Just thinking out loud.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
No, it will just continue as before. The AZ supply is all going to be used for second doses anyway.
I must the only one who finds “politician eats food” stories utterly trite.
I’m thinking of Sir Keir’s fish and chips, Ed’s bacon sarnie and Ozzy’s burger.
Who TF cares?
I do, because it's a relief to talk about apparently trivial shit, as against deadly plague and dry economics. Also this stuff matters: the story of Ursula and The Chair is now everywhere, because it says something about Turkey, men, politics for women, the EU...
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
Except the Tory vote share in St Austell & Newquay increased significantly, and the majority went up by about 3,000, in 2017. So perhaps Theresa May's chip eating style wasn't so off-putting after all?
You maybe missed the other results?
Seriously, when she ate those chips like an autistic, disarticulated android in a lady suit, who had never encountered carbohydrate-based foodstuffs before. that's when I knew she was in deeeeeeep trouble.
Corbyn, for all his immense faults, always looked comfortable in his own skin. Boris always looks like he is enormously enjoying himself, or he is trying to hide the same hedonistic pleasure.
Voters like to find their leaders relatable or cheering or, ideally, both. A leader that makes your teeth grind with embarrassment every time you see her, not so much
She is diabetic and starches convert to sugars. Potato is best avoided.
Random question but if under-30's are going to be offered a non-AZ vaccine, and we're just starting with Moderna, is there a possibility that actually 30-40's will be the last group vaccinated? Just thinking out loud.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
I don't think that would happen, but it would be bloody typical to work out way down with one set of vaccines, and up with the other, so that people in their mid 30s are the very last covered.
I must the only one who finds “politician eats food” stories utterly trite.
I’m thinking of Sir Keir’s fish and chips, Ed’s bacon sarnie and Ozzy’s burger.
Who TF cares?
I do, because it's a relief to talk about apparently trivial shit, as against deadly plague and dry economics. Also this stuff matters: the story of Ursula and The Chair is now everywhere, because it says something about Turkey, men, politics for women, the EU...
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
Except the Tory vote share in St Austell & Newquay increased significantly, and the majority went up by about 3,000, in 2017. So perhaps Theresa May's chip eating style wasn't so off-putting after all?
Random question but if under-30's are going to be offered a non-AZ vaccine, and we're just starting with Moderna, is there a possibility that actually 30-40's will be the last group vaccinated? Just thinking out loud.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
No - but whether the NHS will keep using AZ for the 30-49 cohorts for want of supply of alternatives, or if they'll start giving it away abroad once there's enough in storage to complete the required second doses, who can say?
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
And if you like all of them, like me, I take it your just confused?
I dislike the reboot House of Cards because it piles stupidity up - a Machiavellian Democratic President who tries to set fire to the Democratic Party platform for... lols?
It would have been much more interesting to see him use the policies supported by his party to his own advantage.
The rest are all interesting in the their own ways.
Does reboot mean the American version. I really liked the series with he who must not be named in them but kinda lost interest once he was booted out of the reboot.
I don't know about the principle argument, but I did like the idea of judging people based on which political show they like best.
If you love Yes Minister, you’re sceptical about the motivations of the civil service, and expect a benign level of good natured bumbling from political leaders. You’re probably over 50 and you have no expectation that the government ever accomplishes much but you don’t mind.
If you still love The Thick of It, then you think politicians, voters and the media are the problem. If you love Borgen, then you’re probably a Lib Dem: you want the small party to be in charge just because they’re centrists.
I think the latest crop of special advisers are different. They’re more likely to be fans of the Netflix reboot of House of Cards, Scandal or Designated Survivor. They consider politics a ruthless game played by brilliant backstabbers. Government policy is largely subordinate to playing and winning the game.
Those remaining die-hard West Wing addicts circulating in Westminster think they’re the good guys. They love the show, as Blair’s people did, because it shows good people trying to do the right thing, and mostly succeeding. They have fallen for what I call the Sorkin Delusion: that being clever, articulate and brave is the pathway to success
And if you like all of them, like me, I take it your just confused?
I dislike the reboot House of Cards because it piles stupidity up - a Machiavellian Democratic President who tries to set fire to the Democratic Party platform for... lols?
It would have been much more interesting to see him use the policies supported by his party to his own advantage.
The rest are all interesting in the their own ways.
Does reboot mean the American version. I really liked the series with he who must not be named in them but kinda lost interest once he was booted out of the reboot.
I presumed the American series.
The writing just more and more stupid.
I tried to rewatch the UK version recently. It was hard work
Random question but if under-30's are going to be offered a non-AZ vaccine, and we're just starting with Moderna, is there a possibility that actually 30-40's will be the last group vaccinated? Just thinking out loud.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
I don’t actually think much has changed and expect under 30’s are still heading for a one shot J&J jab and go. I think we’ll also stick to the roll out plan, as we have done so admirably so far in the face of countless special interest wailing (teachers/police officers/shop workers etc, delete as applicable).
On the critical subject of eating fish and chips, while SKS is guilty of being a slightly dull person in the wrong photo op giving the wrong sort of publicity by going anywhere near eating something, he is doing two things right: He is making sure he doesn't do a Miliband - better to look dull and do nothing than look a bit ridiculous. Boris is about the only senior politician around who does OK out of being a lad and a Bertie Wooster. If you haven't got it you can't put it on.
Secondly, in general as far as he has a strategy it is plainly to wait and hope that the times will come when Boris's wheels come off and everyone notices there is a dull, decent, respectable, uxorious, competent, alternative sort of chap we could elect who probably wouldn't trash the country and isn't nuts, and probably wouldn't sit down before all the ladies are seated. Boris's act could become unamusing if we got 3 million unemployed and 18% inflation. (Though he too would generally not sit down before the ladies are comfortable).
Exactly. When we all tire of Boris, the county will want someone like Keir. And it is "when" not "if". And when we tire of Boris, Instagram Rishi is not going to be enough of a change to satisfy.
The trouble is that having someone like Keir as LotO possibly extends the time before we all tire of Boris.
Which county is that then?
Anyway, remember what it was like waiting for the country to tire of Tony Blair? Because I do.
If having a first dose of a vaccine doesn't have any negative effects does that suggest that having a second dose will also not have any negative effects ?
The death penalty isn’t coming back, under a Tory government or a Labour one. The fact that a far lower proportion of MPs support it than the proportion of the public who support it is a ready-made case study for representative democracy over naked populism.
It has never been a party political issue - having been abolished via a Private Member's Bill in the mid-1960s. White working class voters have always tended to support it - and the return of flogging.Looking back at the debates of that era, I find it surprising how quite a few leftish Tories - such as Reginald Maudling - supported its return, whilst right wingers such as Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph were strongly opposed.
I must the only one who finds “politician eats food” stories utterly trite.
I’m thinking of Sir Keir’s fish and chips, Ed’s bacon sarnie and Ozzy’s burger.
Who TF cares?
I do, because it's a relief to talk about apparently trivial shit, as against deadly plague and dry economics. Also this stuff matters: the story of Ursula and The Chair is now everywhere, because it says something about Turkey, men, politics for women, the EU...
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
Except the Tory vote share in St Austell & Newquay increased significantly, and the majority went up by about 3,000, in 2017. So perhaps Theresa May's chip eating style wasn't so off-putting after all?
You maybe missed the other results?
Seriously, when she ate those chips like an autistic, disarticulated android in a lady suit, who had never encountered carbohydrate-based foodstuffs before. that's when I knew she was in deeeeeeep trouble.
Corbyn, for all his immense faults, always looked comfortable in his own skin. Boris always looks like he is enormously enjoying himself, or he is trying to hide the same hedonistic pleasure.
Voters like to find their leaders relatable or cheering or, ideally, both. A leader that makes your teeth grind with embarrassment every time you see her, not so much
She is diabetic and starches convert to sugars. Potato is best avoided.
I know, I had a badly diabetic partner for a while. Knowing that kinda made it worse. She was doing a populist thing in a cack-handed way that probably made her more unpopular, the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich was the same
People like authenticity, they reject the obviously bogus quite fiercely. You have to be a very accomplished actor to bring off a totally fake persona. Boris might be one (I am not sure), Harold Wilson was apparently another (the pipe v the cigar)
Corbyn was authentically himself, which is why he got away with insane terrible policies in 2017. It really helps
Blair was himself and relaxed and won. Brown was not, and awkward, and lost. Sturgeon is a good fake, Salmond is himself, Davidson was good.
Starmer seems reasonably himself. He accepts he is not terribly exciting, and does not pretend otherwise. I suspect the British might give him a second chance if he persists. However, given his boring-ness, he will need some good, eye-catching policies
Random question but if under-30's are going to be offered a non-AZ vaccine, and we're just starting with Moderna, is there a possibility that actually 30-40's will be the last group vaccinated? Just thinking out loud.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
No, it's always adults upwards of x age. So adults upwards of 20 would include 30s.
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
Girl, 19, is arguably being perfectly sensible. She may well have concluded that her risk of harm from Covid-19, and even Long Covid, was very low to begin with, and she already has the bulk of the protection she's going to get from dose 1. Somebody of her age, unless perhaps her health is seriously compromised, probably won't suffer much from missing the second shot, so she might as well do what makes her comfortable.
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
On the critical subject of eating fish and chips, while SKS is guilty of being a slightly dull person in the wrong photo op giving the wrong sort of publicity by going anywhere near eating something, he is doing two things right: He is making sure he doesn't do a Miliband - better to look dull and do nothing than look a bit ridiculous. Boris is about the only senior politician around who does OK out of being a lad and a Bertie Wooster. If you haven't got it you can't put it on.
Secondly, in general as far as he has a strategy it is plainly to wait and hope that the times will come when Boris's wheels come off and everyone notices there is a dull, decent, respectable, uxorious, competent, alternative sort of chap we could elect who probably wouldn't trash the country and isn't nuts, and probably wouldn't sit down before all the ladies are seated. Boris's act could become unamusing if we got 3 million unemployed and 18% inflation. (Though he too would generally not sit down before the ladies are comfortable).
Exactly. When we all tire of Boris, the county will want someone like Keir. And it is "when" not "if". And when we tire of Boris, Instagram Rishi is not going to be enough of a change to satisfy.
The trouble is that having someone like Keir as LotO possibly extends the time before we all tire of Boris.
Right. If wheels come off, the issues may well touch upon the Chancellor's remit, so Sunak may well not be the right person in the right place.
SKS's biggest problem by miles, suppose the scene is set for him at some point, is the rainbow alliance of losers, Asquith revivalists, single issue fanatics, incompatibles, squabbling separatists, die hard unionists who none the less hate the union and stay away fenians, who would make up the vibrant diversity of those he relies on to stay in power. All of which would make the Tory 42% pretty slow to let them in.
And as a Labour majority looks impossible more or less absolutely it has to be faced head on. Even if the wheels come off it isn't going to be dull for quite a time to come yet.
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
Girl, 19, is arguably being perfectly sensible. She may well have concluded that her risk of harm from Covid-19, and even Long Covid, was very low to begin with, and she already has the bulk of the protection she's going to get from dose 1. Somebody of her age, unless perhaps her health is seriously compromised, probably won't suffer much from missing the second shot, so she might as well do what makes her comfortable.
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
That's fair. I am maybe reading my anxieties into her reaction. All the anti vaxxers I know have been energised by today's news. Worrying
On the critical subject of eating fish and chips, while SKS is guilty of being a slightly dull person in the wrong photo op giving the wrong sort of publicity by going anywhere near eating something, he is doing two things right: He is making sure he doesn't do a Miliband - better to look dull and do nothing than look a bit ridiculous. Boris is about the only senior politician around who does OK out of being a lad and a Bertie Wooster. If you haven't got it you can't put it on.
Secondly, in general as far as he has a strategy it is plainly to wait and hope that the times will come when Boris's wheels come off and everyone notices there is a dull, decent, respectable, uxorious, competent, alternative sort of chap we could elect who probably wouldn't trash the country and isn't nuts, and probably wouldn't sit down before all the ladies are seated. Boris's act could become unamusing if we got 3 million unemployed and 18% inflation. (Though he too would generally not sit down before the ladies are comfortable).
Exactly. When we all tire of Boris, the county will want someone like Keir. And it is "when" not "if". And when we tire of Boris, Instagram Rishi is not going to be enough of a change to satisfy.
The trouble is that having someone like Keir as LotO possibly extends the time before we all tire of Boris.
Which county is that then?
Anyway, remember what it was like waiting for the country to tire of Tony Blair? Because I do.
Well indeed. If he'd sat out the Iraq War and reshuffled Brown into the Foreign Office he might well have still been in place in 2009 or 2010 and won again.
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
Girl, 19, is arguably being perfectly sensible. She may well have concluded that her risk of harm from Covid-19, and even Long Covid, was very low to begin with, and she already has the bulk of the protection she's going to get from dose 1. Somebody of her age, unless perhaps her health is seriously compromised, probably won't suffer much from missing the second shot, so she might as well do what makes her comfortable.
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
That's fair. I am maybe reading my anxieties into her reaction. All the anti vaxxers I know have been energised by today's news. Worrying
But they weren't going to get it anyway. I think you've massively overreacted to today's news. In an odd sort of way they've increased the value of Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax to young people.
Jesus Christ, I am watching Sky News for the first time in a long while
When did it become the Guardian on super-steroids? It is one long leftwing, right on, BLM-y, bien pensant, virtue-signalling RANT. it makes Channel 4 look balanced
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
Girl, 19, is arguably being perfectly sensible. She may well have concluded that her risk of harm from Covid-19, and even Long Covid, was very low to begin with, and she already has the bulk of the protection she's going to get from dose 1. Somebody of her age, unless perhaps her health is seriously compromised, probably won't suffer much from missing the second shot, so she might as well do what makes her comfortable.
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
That's fair. I am maybe reading my anxieties into her reaction. All the anti vaxxers I know have been energised by today's news. Worrying
But they weren't going to get it anyway. I think you've massively overreacted to today's news. In an odd sort of way they've increased the value of Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax to young people.
We shall see, quite soon. My family, which can be quite allergic to bad news stories, has taken all this with total calm
It's the already anti-vaxy who are agitated. So you may well be right
This is a crucial point with nearly all businesses, and one that is often missed.
Spending government money to bail out shareholders and debt holders is often not necessary to ensure that businesses keep running. In a proper functioning market economy, we simply see new owners of the assets.
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
Girl, 19, is arguably being perfectly sensible. She may well have concluded that her risk of harm from Covid-19, and even Long Covid, was very low to begin with, and she already has the bulk of the protection she's going to get from dose 1. Somebody of her age, unless perhaps her health is seriously compromised, probably won't suffer much from missing the second shot, so she might as well do what makes her comfortable.
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
That's fair. I am maybe reading my anxieties into her reaction. All the anti vaxxers I know have been energised by today's news. Worrying
That is understandable. I was terribly gloomy last night and this morning. Mood has been lightened somewhat by offer - Alleluia! - of vaccine appointment (not towards the end of April though - Moderna?) But I'm still fretting that we're going to end up with some horrible national biosecurity state at the end of all this - i.e., it may never end. Not really.
Anyway - as regards the matter in hand, yes, I dare say the anti-vaxxers are feeling vindicated, but that was inevitable. But just so long as they can't make large numbers of converts then what they think doesn't matter that much. At least, not insofar as Covid is concerned. The parents who stop their kids getting the MMR jab are a much more serious concern.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules. Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations? Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No. Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City. Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out. Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked? Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid. Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you. (Yes Minister – 1987)
The UK apparently has two objectives for cross-Channel rail services:
not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...
Fine to bail them out. But in a recap the current equity is worth pennies on the dollar
To be clear, I don't have a problem with shareholders taking the rap. Someone has to. I do however expect the UK government to do a deal with SNCF that takes into account that company's previous ownership in Eurostar, although it may want to be discreet or indirect about it. That simply reflects SNCF's controlling position in any future arrangement.
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
Girl, 19, is arguably being perfectly sensible. She may well have concluded that her risk of harm from Covid-19, and even Long Covid, was very low to begin with, and she already has the bulk of the protection she's going to get from dose 1. Somebody of her age, unless perhaps her health is seriously compromised, probably won't suffer much from missing the second shot, so she might as well do what makes her comfortable.
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
That's fair. I am maybe reading my anxieties into her reaction. All the anti vaxxers I know have been energised by today's news. Worrying
But they weren't going to get it anyway. I think you've massively overreacted to today's news. In an odd sort of way they've increased the value of Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax to young people.
We shall see, quite soon. My family, which can be quite allergic to bad news stories, has taken all this with total calm
It's the already anti-vaxy who are agitated. So you may well be right
I'm not worried, my wife is 29 and in the group who are now waiting for other vaccines and also isn't worried.
If having a first dose of a vaccine doesn't have any negative effects does that suggest that having a second dose will also not have any negative effects ?
I was wondering same thing. Presumably it might but the risk level even lower??
We don't whilst the Government fails to take the problem of imported viral shit seriously enough.
The single best measure that could be taken right now to promote public health would be blanket hotel quarantine for incoming air travellers, if necessary accompanied by a rationing system so that returning UK & Irish nationals have to join a virtual queue for the available quarantine rooms, and aren't allowed back until places become available.
We could then open air bridges to individual countries once we'd properly kicked the crap out of this virus, but only to countries that had done at least as effective a job. Anything else is reckless.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules. Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations? Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No. Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City. Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out. Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked? Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid. Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you. (Yes Minister – 1987)
I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing close up rioting around my old stomping ground of West Belfast this evening where, as usual, the locals like to take things a step further, in this case petrol bombing a bus with the driver still in it. (Driver reportedly lucky)
I am still hopeful that a bit of this recent trouble is what back in the day was always a bit of Easter causal rioting, kids off school, weather dry, kick off a bit. Sure we have upset over a number of things; NI Protocol & the police backing out of any sanction of senior Sinn Fein figures, including government ministers, over about as blatant a breach of Covid rules as you can get.
There is a mysterious lack of media & police suggestions that the trouble is not being driven by certain loyalist groups, with the exception of a particular breakaway faction that has a bit of clout in a certain strip of County Antrim. This group is reportedly upset that the cops have been leaning on their drug trafficking,
This seems rather remiss, deliberately so. The trouble is shifting around, different towns & different parts of Belfast suggesting a deliberate policy of action. When it kicks off in the way it did in the centre of loyalism in West Belfast, that kinda of thing has a particular sanction. The question is who? Is it one particular organisation or are they all in on it?
Its wasteful because its going to achieve nothing, it has neither scale nor seriousness of impact at this point. Whilst someone is sending kids out for a bit of entertainment and possible conviction, the obvious thing they could do is kill some ranking EU official based in Belfast. Whilst not in anyway suggesting they should do it, it would probably get the kind of response they want. With the EU in particular such threat is likely to pay off.
They won't though, instead they will just burn their own streets and maintain deniability.
Again, I do not remotely understand, and I will never forgive. We are an island. Take advantage. Close. The. Fucking. Borders
Search me. No idea. Obviously freight needs to flow. But businessmen from Nigeria?
I'm in a deeply pessimistic mood tonight. We are heading straight to an autumn lockdown I fear.
This is why the Astra Zeneca advice was utterly asinine. It relies on "low exposure". Really?
Well, here come some new variants which might change that, quite quickly. Close the fucking borders, you stupid morons, and give everyone a jab ASAP and shut the F up about tiny clotting risks for 1 in 1 million people when this Nigerian variant is 2 times more deadly than "normal" Covid which is already killing hundreds of thousands
And does anyone in Government know how many hundreds of people flew into the UK from Nigeria over the last week?
No. Thought not.
I don't understand the government's attitude to the border. It's quite simply the single most destructive policy we've had during this pandemic.
Mercifully - from what little I understand of how this wretched disease works, and I hope to God I'm not being uncharacteristically sunny about all this in vain - I don't expect complete vaccine escape. But it's absolutely foolhardy to keep playing Russian roulette with it like this.
And if I ultimately turn out to be wrong and one of these variants causes yet another interminable lockdown then... well, I won't say what I think ought to be done to our Dear Leader under those circumstances. But it's not pleasant.
And does anyone in Government know how many hundreds of people flew into the UK from Nigeria over the last week?
No. Thought not.
I don't understand the government's attitude to the border. It's quite simply the single most destructive policy we've had during this pandemic.
We've kept the border open so people from PERU (world's highest Covid excess death rate) can come on holiday "to see Big Ben"
Meanwhile every Briton has been locked away at home for most of a year, and is forbidden from foreign holidays altogether
Piss-boiling
Yes, someone needs to punch every single minister in the balls over and over again until this policy is changed. I still don't understand how the opposition aren't smashing the government on this every single day. I'd raise the issue every single PMQs with all of the new idiotic scenarios that we hear about such as the above until Boris is embarrassed enough to fire Shapps and reverse the policy.
And does anyone in Government know how many hundreds of people flew into the UK from Nigeria over the last week?
No. Thought not.
I don't understand the government's attitude to the border. It's quite simply the single most destructive policy we've had during this pandemic.
It's incomprehensible. My only plausible explanation is that the Tories are in hock to the airlines and airports, because the government seem to be obsessed with the idea of enabling overseas travel despite the potential for it to send us back to square one.
If having a first dose of a vaccine doesn't have any negative effects does that suggest that having a second dose will also not have any negative effects ?
Not a medical expert but I did read somewhere and FWIW that Astrazeneca has normally more effects on the first dose and less on the second, while it's the other way round with Pfizer. My Mum who had AZ had no effects on her first, but did on her second, so that didn't fit the supposed pattern.
I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing close up rioting around my old stomping ground of West Belfast this evening where, as usual, the locals like to take things a step further, in this case petrol bombing a bus with the driver still in it. (Driver reportedly lucky)
I am still hopeful that a bit of this recent trouble is what back in the day was always a bit of Easter causal rioting, kids off school, weather dry, kick off a bit. Sure we have upset over a number of things; NI Protocol & the police backing out of any sanction of senior Sinn Fein figures, including government ministers, over about as blatant a breach of Covid rules as you can get.
There is a mysterious lack of media & police suggestions that the trouble is not being driven by certain loyalist groups, with the exception of a particular breakaway faction that has a bit of clout in a certain strip of County Antrim. This group is reportedly upset that the cops have been leaning on their drug trafficking,
This seems rather remiss, deliberately so. The trouble is shifting around, different towns & different parts of Belfast suggesting a deliberate policy of action. When it kicks off in the way it did in the centre of loyalism in West Belfast, that kinda of thing has a particular sanction. The question is who? Is it one particular organisation or are they all in on it?
Its wasteful because its going to achieve nothing, it has neither scale nor seriousness of impact at this point. Whilst someone is sending kids out for a bit of entertainment and possible conviction, the obvious thing they could do is kill some ranking EU official based in Belfast. Whilst not in anyway suggesting they should do it, it would probably get the kind of response they want. With the EU in particular such threat is likely to pay off.
They won't though, instead they will just burn their own streets and maintain deniability.
I wondered something along those lines.
But the loyalist terrorists always come across as both criminal and thick.
Jesus Christ, I am watching Sky News for the first time in a long while
When did it become the Guardian on super-steroids? It is one long leftwing, right on, BLM-y, bien pensant, virtue-signalling RANT. it makes Channel 4 look balanced
Again, I do not remotely understand, and I will never forgive. We are an island. Take advantage. Close. The. Fucking. Borders
Search me. No idea. Obviously freight needs to flow. But businessmen from Nigeria?
I'm in a deeply pessimistic mood tonight. We are heading straight to an autumn lockdown I fear.
That would genuinely see Tory support crater and Boris be in trouble I think. Whatever general caution the government may express on optimism, I think people are holding out that this really will be the last ever lockdown. If it isn't, he's fucked.
And does anyone in Government know how many hundreds of people flew into the UK from Nigeria over the last week?
No. Thought not.
I don't understand the government's attitude to the border. It's quite simply the single most destructive policy we've had during this pandemic.
Mercifully - from what little I understand of how this wretched disease works, and I hope to God I'm not being uncharacteristically sunny about all this in vain - I don't expect complete vaccine escape. But it's absolutely foolhardy to keep playing Russian roulette with it like this.
And if I ultimately turn out to be wrong and one of these variants causes yet another interminable lockdown then... well, I won't say what I think ought to be done to our Dear Leader under those circumstances. But it's not pleasant.
Yes there won't be complete escape and we can already see that with AZ and Novavax which have got lower efficacy against symptomatic COVID but maintain very high efficacy against severe symptoms and hospitalisation against the SA and Brazilian variants.
Ultimately we're going to beat this with science and we have got a huge vaccine portfolio including vaccines that are yet to be trialled and can be edited now for delivery in September.
Comments
Sometimes it really works, The Trial of the Chicago 7 was just superb because of that hyper articulacy.
It's also why I think the best thing Armando Iannucci has ever made is The Death of Stalin - it makes sense and works for the Soviet Politburo to be caricatures! I shall never think of Marshal Zhukov the same way again.
Rather like Dr Strangeglove - it turns itself into a farce, with very little effort from the writers.
Then again -
Georgy Zhukov : Now, it's got to be tomorrow.
Nikita Khrushchev : Tomorrow?
Georgy Zhukov : Sorry, you busy washing your hair or what?
Nikita Khrushchev : Tomorrow's the funeral.
Georgy Zhukov : Yeah, the day that the entire fucking Army's in town with their guns.
The fact that Labour voters are minded for the reintroduction of capital punishment is nonetheless handy to bear in mind for a struggling Conservative Government, particularly one led by Priti Patel.
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1379721409140768771?s=20
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1379721607267094528?s=20
The difference between Yes Minister and TTOI maybe shows the limits of low-cost creative media. With a BBC4 budget (peanuts, and be grateful that they're in the plural) a bright cast can semi-improvise something clever and funny. With a proper BBC1 budget, you get a beautifully-engineered work of genius.
- not to bail out foreign owners of Eurostar (largest is SNCF)
- ensure continued rail services (depends entirely on the cooperation of SNCF)
A cue for a haggle, I suspect...https://twitter.com/MichaelShurkin/status/1379768862963564552?s=20
Spending government money to bail out shareholders and debt holders is often not necessary to ensure that businesses keep running. In a proper functioning market economy, we simply see new owners of the assets.
Write out 100 times, "it is never Boris Johnson's fault".
However, the existing investors will lose all their money.
And that's capitalism, folks.
And on a practical self-interested note, most of my peers are also in their 40s and we've all got kids at school, so we've got more of a vested interest in keeping to the rules for a bit longer, compared to the older cohorts who are now vaxxed, and the younger ones who have always been less at risk.
Once we're vaxxed, I hope we go back towards what feels like normality. I could go for a decade of 20's style hedonism right now.
And as for chips in the West Country, the moment I realised Teresa was a disaster was when she ate chips in Cornwall
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/859432589215617025?s=20
Secondly, in general as far as he has a strategy it is plainly to wait and hope that the times will come when Boris's wheels come off and everyone notices there is a dull, decent, respectable, uxorious, competent, alternative sort of chap we could elect who probably wouldn't trash the country and isn't nuts, and probably wouldn't sit down before all the ladies are seated. Boris's act could become unamusing if we got 3 million unemployed and 18% inflation. (Though he too would generally not sit down before the ladies are comfortable).
You do your argument no favours with these bullshit references, and your gloating about "British failures", and your exultation in British deaths
That's leverage, folks...
Seriously, when she ate those chips like an autistic, disarticulated android in a lady suit, who had never encountered carbohydrate-based foodstuffs before. that's when I knew she was in deeeeeeep trouble.
Corbyn, for all his immense faults, always looked comfortable in his own skin. Boris always looks like he is enormously enjoying himself, or he is trying to hide the same hedonistic pleasure.
Voters like to find their leaders relatable or cheering or, ideally, both. A leader that makes your teeth grind with embarrassment every time you see her, not so much
Lots of high value jobs set to be created.
I mean, that'd be really annoying if it was the case, and you just happened to be in that age group, or something.
The trouble is that having someone like Keir as LotO possibly extends the time before we all tire of Boris.
Says someone in the 34-35 range.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/07/astrazeneca-vaccine-reaction-to-advice-on-jabs-for-under-30s
One is relatively unfussed, the other says "I won't have the 2nd dose"
It's a relatively small polling sample - 2 - but I wonder. The reluctant girl is 19. I fear young people and some BAMEs will be swayed by this
https://twitter.com/jeffreyjohnbell/status/1379891482325360645
Anyway, remember what it was like waiting for the country to tire of Tony Blair? Because I do.
If having a first dose of a vaccine doesn't have any negative effects does that suggest that having a second dose will also not have any negative effects ?
People like authenticity, they reject the obviously bogus quite fiercely. You have to be a very accomplished actor to bring off a totally fake persona. Boris might be one (I am not sure), Harold Wilson was apparently another (the pipe v the cigar)
Corbyn was authentically himself, which is why he got away with insane terrible policies in 2017. It really helps
Blair was himself and relaxed and won. Brown was not, and awkward, and lost. Sturgeon is a good fake, Salmond is himself, Davidson was good.
Starmer seems reasonably himself. He accepts he is not terribly exciting, and does not pretend otherwise. I suspect the British might give him a second chance if he persists. However, given his boring-ness, he will need some good, eye-catching policies
On the broader point, given the extremely high level of take-up in the higher age cohorts so far, there would need to be many millions of refusals amongst the young to pose a serious risk to herd immunity. That doesn't seem likely.
SKS's biggest problem by miles, suppose the scene is set for him at some point, is the rainbow alliance of losers, Asquith revivalists, single issue fanatics, incompatibles, squabbling separatists, die hard unionists who none the less hate the union and stay away fenians, who would make up the vibrant diversity of those he relies on to stay in power. All of which would make the Tory 42% pretty slow to let them in.
And as a Labour majority looks impossible more or less absolutely it has to be faced head on. Even if the wheels come off it isn't going to be dull for quite a time to come yet.
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1379894225962209283
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1379894679668469765
When did it become the Guardian on super-steroids? It is one long leftwing, right on, BLM-y, bien pensant, virtue-signalling RANT. it makes Channel 4 look balanced
No wonder GB News saw a niche
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1379895030077394950
It's the already anti-vaxy who are agitated. So you may well be right
Anyway - as regards the matter in hand, yes, I dare say the anti-vaxxers are feeling vindicated, but that was inevitable. But just so long as they can't make large numbers of converts then what they think doesn't matter that much. At least, not insofar as Covid is concerned. The parents who stop their kids getting the MMR jab are a much more serious concern.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules.
Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No.
Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City.
Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
(Yes Minister – 1987)
When do we get a break from this bastard???
No. Thought not.
Again, I do not remotely understand, and I will never forgive. We are an island. Take advantage. Close. The. Fucking. Borders
France seems to be having regular tech problems with its data.
I wonder if the people who were so excited about the UK excel data problem last year will be as eagerly tweeting about this.
The single best measure that could be taken right now to promote public health would be blanket hotel quarantine for incoming air travellers, if necessary accompanied by a rationing system so that returning UK & Irish nationals have to join a virtual queue for the available quarantine rooms, and aren't allowed back until places become available.
We could then open air bridges to individual countries once we'd properly kicked the crap out of this virus, but only to countries that had done at least as effective a job. Anything else is reckless.
Just clever enough. And straight as an arrow.
Meanwhile every Briton has been locked away at home for most of a year, and is forbidden from foreign holidays altogether
Piss-boiling
I'm in a deeply pessimistic mood tonight. We are heading straight to an autumn lockdown I fear.
I am still hopeful that a bit of this recent trouble is what back in the day was always a bit of Easter causal rioting, kids off school, weather dry, kick off a bit. Sure we have upset over a number of things; NI Protocol & the police backing out of any sanction of senior Sinn Fein figures, including government ministers, over about as blatant a breach of Covid rules as you can get.
There is a mysterious lack of media & police suggestions that the trouble is not being driven by certain loyalist groups, with the exception of a particular breakaway faction that has a bit of clout in a certain strip of County Antrim. This group is reportedly upset that the cops have been leaning on their drug trafficking,
This seems rather remiss, deliberately so. The trouble is shifting around, different towns & different parts of Belfast suggesting a deliberate policy of action. When it kicks off in the way it did in the centre of loyalism in West Belfast, that kinda of thing has a particular sanction. The question is who? Is it one particular organisation or are they all in on it?
Its wasteful because its going to achieve nothing, it has neither scale nor seriousness of impact at this point. Whilst someone is sending kids out for a bit of entertainment and possible conviction, the obvious thing they could do is kill some ranking EU official based in Belfast. Whilst not in anyway suggesting they should do it, it would probably get the kind of response they want. With the EU in particular such threat is likely to pay off.
They won't though, instead they will just burn their own streets and maintain deniability.
Well, here come some new variants which might change that, quite quickly. Close the fucking borders, you stupid morons, and give everyone a jab ASAP and shut the F up about tiny clotting risks for 1 in 1 million people when this Nigerian variant is 2 times more deadly than "normal" Covid which is already killing hundreds of thousands
And if I ultimately turn out to be wrong and one of these variants causes yet another interminable lockdown then... well, I won't say what I think ought to be done to our Dear Leader under those circumstances. But it's not pleasant.
But the loyalist terrorists always come across as both criminal and thick.
GBnews will run riot with Sky's viewing figures
Ultimately we're going to beat this with science and we have got a huge vaccine portfolio including vaccines that are yet to be trialled and can be edited now for delivery in September.