Punb chat from last night - the Tories should have run Rory. Everyone around the table would have voted for him but none want to vote for Bailey. I got most of them on board for the Lib Dem, everyone just assumes Sadiq has his wrapped up but I don't know anyone voting for him. Obviously he has it wrapped up and the issue is that I just don't speak to any Sadiq voters as we probably don't have a lot of crossover. It does mean there is a market in 2024/5 for a not-Sadiq candidate, especially with brexit in the rear view mirror.
FWIW, and I don't move in your pub circles, I'd have probably given Rory my second preference vote. As it is, I'm disinclined to exercise my second vote again. I have no confidence in either Sadiq Khan or Shaun Bailey.
Labour have been out canvassing in East Ham Central for a by-election. As they are defending a seat they won with 86% of the vote, I can't see they've much to worry about. The Governance Referendum in Newham is much more interesting - I'm happy to see Councillor Fiaz's Mayoral powers cut back but concerned this is a front for a pro-Momentum take over of Newham Council and the election of a very radical Cabinet.
We have no Opposition - the 35% who didn't vote Labour in 2018 (whether Conservative, LD, Green or whatever) have no representation at all. It's an internal Labour factional issue into which we have all been dragged.
If you want to know why I support PR, that's why and I would say exactly the same if it were an LD council with 100% of the seats on 65% of the vote (or indeed a Conservative one).
I find the argument for PR at local elections overwhelming - it wouldn't stop Labour having a majority in Newham but there would be a group of 18 Opposition councillors who would at least ensure other voices are heard,
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
BoJo just goes where the polls tell him to go. He doesn't actually have any beliefs or principles.
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Worked for Blair. Suspect you’re pissed about it as he’s not your man.
I voted for Blair twice.
Blair is very much my man, he's Labour and he won three elections, we should listen to him.
Yup Blair knows how to reduce the world population .. especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But but but - he was made Middle East peace envoy.............
Well, not necessarily a stupid choice. It leads to one point of agreement among Sunni, Shia, Jew, secular, Arab, Parsi, Turk - that Tony Blair is a lying c***.
Having reached this one point of agreement, it might be possible to reach others.
Dom Bess took five of the six wickets to fall today in Sussex’s second innings. First step on his road to England rehabilitation ?
Also Hameed made his first century since 2019....
And Glaws fell agonisingly exactly 1 short of making Hampshire bat again.
Hants already looking for my money favourites for the title. They’ve always had the bowling, but this year the batting is just beyond belief. Every time they go to the crease they seem to rattle off 450.
Punb chat from last night - the Tories should have run Rory. Everyone around the table would have voted for him but none want to vote for Bailey. I got most of them on board for the Lib Dem, everyone just assumes Sadiq has his wrapped up but I don't know anyone voting for him. Obviously he has it wrapped up and the issue is that I just don't speak to any Sadiq voters as we probably don't have a lot of crossover. It does mean there is a market in 2024/5 for a not-Sadiq candidate, especially with brexit in the rear view mirror.
FWIW, and I don't move in your pub circles, I'd have probably given Rory my second preference vote. As it is, I'm disinclined to exercise my second vote again. I have no confidence in either Sadiq Khan or Shaun Bailey.
Labour have been out canvassing in East Ham Central for a by-election. As they are defending a seat they won with 86% of the vote, I can't see they've much to worry about. The Governance Referendum in Newham is much more interesting - I'm happy to see Councillor Fiaz's Mayoral powers cut back but concerned this is a front for a pro-Momentum take over of Newham Council and the election of a very radical Cabinet.
We have no Opposition - the 35% who didn't vote Labour in 2018 (whether Conservative, LD, Green or whatever) have no representation at all. It's an internal Labour factional issue into which we have all been dragged.
If you want to know why I support PR, that's why and I would say exactly the same if it were an LD council with 100% of the seats on 65% of the vote (or indeed a Conservative one).
I find the argument for PR at local elections overwhelming - it wouldn't stop Labour having a majority in Newham but there would be a group of 18 Opposition councillors who would at least ensure other voices are heard,
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
You'd think the Greens would be able to make inroads in local government in London.
Punb chat from last night - the Tories should have run Rory. Everyone around the table would have voted for him but none want to vote for Bailey. I got most of them on board for the Lib Dem, everyone just assumes Sadiq has his wrapped up but I don't know anyone voting for him. Obviously he has it wrapped up and the issue is that I just don't speak to any Sadiq voters as we probably don't have a lot of crossover. It does mean there is a market in 2024/5 for a not-Sadiq candidate, especially with brexit in the rear view mirror.
FWIW, and I don't move in your pub circles, I'd have probably given Rory my second preference vote. As it is, I'm disinclined to exercise my second vote again. I have no confidence in either Sadiq Khan or Shaun Bailey.
Labour have been out canvassing in East Ham Central for a by-election. As they are defending a seat they won with 86% of the vote, I can't see they've much to worry about. The Governance Referendum in Newham is much more interesting - I'm happy to see Councillor Fiaz's Mayoral powers cut back but concerned this is a front for a pro-Momentum take over of Newham Council and the election of a very radical Cabinet.
We have no Opposition - the 35% who didn't vote Labour in 2018 (whether Conservative, LD, Green or whatever) have no representation at all. It's an internal Labour factional issue into which we have all been dragged.
If you want to know why I support PR, that's why and I would say exactly the same if it were an LD council with 100% of the seats on 65% of the vote (or indeed a Conservative one).
I find the argument for PR at local elections overwhelming - it wouldn't stop Labour having a majority in Newham but there would be a group of 18 Opposition councillors who would at least ensure other voices are heard,
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
You'd think the Greens would be able to make inroads in local government in London.
Definitely, the Lib Dems too. Don't see the Tories doing very much in London. Most of the city see the Tories as the landlord class.
Just looking at the latest vaccination figures for Newham:
Among those aged over 70, 14,215 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 17,825 have received a first vaccination so that's just shy of 80%.
Among those over 50, 61,801 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 88,113 have received a first vaccination which is just over 70%.
Essentially, there are 3,610 older people over 70 in my Borough with no protection from Covid-19. In addition, a further 22,200 people over 50 have no protection either at this time.
That concerns me as there's plenty of fuel for the next virus wave.
NYT - As Covid-19 Devastates India, Deaths Go Undercounted
> India’s coronavirus second wave is rapidly sliding into a devastating crisis, with more than 300,000 new cases each day, a world record.
> But experts say the number is just a fraction of the virus’s real reach, and there is mounting evidence that the actual death toll is far higher than reported.
Dom Bess took five of the six wickets to fall today in Sussex’s second innings. First step on his road to England rehabilitation ?
Also Hameed made his first century since 2019....
And Glaws fell agonisingly exactly 1 short of making Hampshire bat again.
Hants already looking for my money favourites for the title. They’ve always had the bowling, but this year the batting is just beyond belief. Every time they go to the crease they seem to rattle off 450.
And they’ve scored them in all conditions at a fast pace, too.
Okay, Leicestershire are Leicestershire. And Surrey’s attack is having a poor season. But even Gloucestershire, who have variety, pace, skill to rival most teams with Worrall’s arrival, may have kept the scoring down to three an over but couldn’t knock them over for a par score.
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
As the war passes out of living memory, the commemoration is naturally going to change - get a bit wonkier, people putting their own spin on it. It will eventually be the same as Guy Fawkes night.
You'd think we'd be remembering those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and heroes like Lee Rigby.
I think it was probably Iraq that changed the culture around poppies. A lot of people were anti the Iraq war, but there was a backlash against the anti-war movement. I'm sure that some of this came from the wider establishment - equating any criticism of the war with criticising the poor bloody infantry - but also it was a backlash against some in the anti-war movement who wanted to see British troops defeated.
My impression is that is why poppyism is now about supporting the current serving soldiers, whereas in the past it was about remembering the dead from past conflicts and trying to avoid adding to that number.
Just looking at the latest vaccination figures for Newham:
Among those aged over 70, 14,215 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 17,825 have received a first vaccination so that's just shy of 80%.
Among those over 50, 61,801 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 88,113 have received a first vaccination which is just over 70%.
Essentially, there are 3,610 older people over 70 in my Borough with no protection from Covid-19. In addition, a further 22,200 people over 50 have no protection either at this time.
That concerns me as there's plenty of fuel for the next virus wave.
Oh well. They’ve had their chance. Get yours and get on with your life.
Punb chat from last night - the Tories should have run Rory. Everyone around the table would have voted for him but none want to vote for Bailey. I got most of them on board for the Lib Dem, everyone just assumes Sadiq has his wrapped up but I don't know anyone voting for him. Obviously he has it wrapped up and the issue is that I just don't speak to any Sadiq voters as we probably don't have a lot of crossover. It does mean there is a market in 2024/5 for a not-Sadiq candidate, especially with brexit in the rear view mirror.
FWIW, and I don't move in your pub circles, I'd have probably given Rory my second preference vote. As it is, I'm disinclined to exercise my second vote again. I have no confidence in either Sadiq Khan or Shaun Bailey.
Labour have been out canvassing in East Ham Central for a by-election. As they are defending a seat they won with 86% of the vote, I can't see they've much to worry about. The Governance Referendum in Newham is much more interesting - I'm happy to see Councillor Fiaz's Mayoral powers cut back but concerned this is a front for a pro-Momentum take over of Newham Council and the election of a very radical Cabinet.
We have no Opposition - the 35% who didn't vote Labour in 2018 (whether Conservative, LD, Green or whatever) have no representation at all. It's an internal Labour factional issue into which we have all been dragged.
If you want to know why I support PR, that's why and I would say exactly the same if it were an LD council with 100% of the seats on 65% of the vote (or indeed a Conservative one).
I find the argument for PR at local elections overwhelming - it wouldn't stop Labour having a majority in Newham but there would be a group of 18 Opposition councillors who would at least ensure other voices are heard,
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
It is and with nearly 2/3 of the votes cast, I'm not disputing Labour's mandate to run the Borough.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
Just looking at the latest vaccination figures for Newham:
Among those aged over 70, 14,215 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 17,825 have received a first vaccination so that's just shy of 80%.
Among those over 50, 61,801 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 88,113 have received a first vaccination which is just over 70%.
Essentially, there are 3,610 older people over 70 in my Borough with no protection from Covid-19. In addition, a further 22,200 people over 50 have no protection either at this time.
That concerns me as there's plenty of fuel for the next virus wave.
So are assuming they are real people not voters invented for electoral benefit
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
Last year, I posted here about the following - civil servants were appalled to discover that ministers would refuse to accept responsibility at an eventual COVID enquiry for actions by permanent officials that *went against* Ministerial decisions.
That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case
- Minster say "do A" - Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first - Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.
Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.
There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
And Lord Carrington resigned because honourable ministers accepted responsibility for their departments. The point was also made in Yes Minister, iirc. Nowadays, ministers are responsible for nothing.
More than 1,000 deaths were processed at COVID-19 funeral facilities in Bhopal, India, during a 13-day period when government figures show only 41 deaths
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
It is and with nearly 2/3 of the votes cast, I'm not disputing Labour's mandate to run the Borough.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
Westminster will never allow STV for local government because it risks people getting used to STV.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
Last year, I posted here about the following - civil servants were appalled to discover that ministers would refuse to accept responsibility at an eventual COVID enquiry for actions by permanent officials that *went against* Ministerial decisions.
That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case
- Minster say "do A" - Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first - Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.
Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.
There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
And Lord Carrington resigned because honourable ministers accepted responsibility for their departments. The point was also made in Yes Minister, iirc. Nowadays, ministers are responsible for nothing.
Whatever the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, any civil servant who disobeys a direct ministerial instruction has to be sacked. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy and unacceptable.
In the Carrington case, it was largely that he didn’t have an adequate answer when asked why he didn’t know what was going on, plus his very thin skin, that brought him down.
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
That's...not how numbers work.
This is embarrassing.
Yes it is.
100% - 37% = 63%
You can't conclude 63% think Boris Johnson isn't corrupt. 63% includes a whole load of don't knows, you can't just put that into your column because you feel like it.
More people think BoJo is corrupt than don't, end of story.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If 37% think he's corrupt then 63% don't think he is. Don't know belongs to don't.
EDIT: And it looks like that Tweet has now been deleted too. So you've not only gotten the wrong end of the stick but possibly gone running off dodgy data.
I do not know the details of this tweet but I would comment as follows
The lobbying scandal rotates around David Cameron and civil servants
On the Dyson tax issue he requested that his staff working in the UK beyond 90 days were not penalised and exceptions were granted due to the crisis to all the contractors who were in a similar position Did the polling explain this detail properly
The attack by Cummings on Boris is coming from a source who has trashed his own reputation and integrity
And details of Boris being a chancer, unreliable, dishonest and having a chaotic private life are already accepted and he has a unique ability to attract the red wall voters by being himself, not pretending he loves the flag or is patriotic, as that is in his dna and he has succeeded with the vaccine rollout, opening up the economy, slaying the ESL, and being someone lotd of people would enjoy a pint with
This contradiction causes his opponents to cry in despair with no real way of genuinely responding, other than to cry foul while Boris just continues on his way
It would be foolish to underestimate the teflon nature of Boris, but someday he will be removed, but that looks quite sometime away
Yes, Cummings has a bad reputation, all right. BUT the stink is NOT just on him, but also on his former boss.
You cannot waltz with a skunk and end up smelling like a rose. Just the opposite!
And while few would take Cummings at his word without evidence, appears that he's stored up a boatload of THAT. And is ready, willing & able to deploy it strategically - drip by drip by drip.
Speaking with a young boy, the present he has reacted best to of all was a baby doll for his first birthday, who we literally could not get out of the packaging quickly enough once he had seen him. Once we managed that he hugged the baby right away.
My view is that any toy that is good for a girl's development is good for a boy's, and vice versa. The idea that certain toys, hobbies or sports are "for boys" and others "for girls" in either direction I imagine influences people not being comfortable that the sex they were born with represents them. We need to move away from masculine/feminine stereotypes of the sexes, while supporting those who are trans.
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
It is and with nearly 2/3 of the votes cast, I'm not disputing Labour's mandate to run the Borough.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
Yeah 35% of people having no representation is bad for local people. They have no voice under the current system. It was the same as UKIP in 2015, 4m with no national representation which I said at the time was wrong and why I'm open to some form of PR nationally too. I'm not a UKIP voter, but I don't think it's a good thing for people to have no representation, even if there is a minimum requirement to make it into parliament. I've only lived in Barnet for a month or so, no negatives so far but then again, I'm not someone that has a lot of interaction with local government.
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
It is and with nearly 2/3 of the votes cast, I'm not disputing Labour's mandate to run the Borough.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
Westminster will never allow STV for local government because it risks people getting used to STV.
So voters think the Tories are corrupt, BoJo is corrupt - and they think Labour and Keir Starmer are not corrupt.
And yet the Tories continue to lead.
Ergo, the voters don't give a toss. Depressing.
It doesn't quite follow. It's like the Yes Minister discussion. There is clever and dishonest, thick and honest, and thick and dishonest. Of course there should be Clever and honest. But, the punch line, 'Let me know if you find one'.
The public usually would choose Clever and Honest but would always choose Clever and Dishonest over the other options.
Sometimes even Clever and Honest is impossible as well as unavailable. For example, how could Brexit have been done at all given that there is no solution to the Ireland problem which doesn't breach red lines, without deception. Depressing. But not because voters don't care. They do.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
Last year, I posted here about the following - civil servants were appalled to discover that ministers would refuse to accept responsibility at an eventual COVID enquiry for actions by permanent officials that *went against* Ministerial decisions.
That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case
- Minster say "do A" - Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first - Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.
Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.
There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
And Lord Carrington resigned because honourable ministers accepted responsibility for their departments. The point was also made in Yes Minister, iirc. Nowadays, ministers are responsible for nothing.
Whatever the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, any civil servant who disobeys a direct ministerial instruction has to be sacked. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy and unacceptable.
In the Carrington case, it was largely that he didn’t have an adequate answer when asked why he didn’t know what was going on, plus his very thin skin, that brought him down.
It's not quite as straightforward as that. Civil servants have to abide by a) the law, and b) the Civil Service Code of Conduct. If implementing a direct ministerial instruction contravenes either of those, then the civil servant may be entitled to disobey it. This has been known to happen, funnily enough.
So voters think the Tories are corrupt, BoJo is corrupt - and they think Labour and Keir Starmer are not corrupt.
And yet the Tories continue to lead.
Ergo, the voters don't give a toss. Depressing.
It doesn't quite follow. It's like the Yes Minister discussion. There is clever and dishonest, thick and honest, and thick and dishonest. Of course there should be Clever and honest. But, the punch line, 'Let me know if you find one'.
The public usually would choose Clever and Honest but would always choose Clever and Dishonest over the other options.
Sometimes even Clever and Honest is impossible as well as unavailable. For example, how could Brexit have been done at all given that there is no solution to the Ireland problem which doesn't breach red lines, without deception. Depressing. But not because voters don't care. They do.
Well, that might work if Johnson was clever.
I think Starmer has more than a slight edge on intellect though.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
Last year, I posted here about the following - civil servants were appalled to discover that ministers would refuse to accept responsibility at an eventual COVID enquiry for actions by permanent officials that *went against* Ministerial decisions.
That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case
- Minster say "do A" - Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first - Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.
Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.
There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
And Lord Carrington resigned because honourable ministers accepted responsibility for their departments. The point was also made in Yes Minister, iirc. Nowadays, ministers are responsible for nothing.
Whatever the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, any civil servant who disobeys a direct ministerial instruction has to be sacked. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy and unacceptable.
In the Carrington case, it was largely that he didn’t have an adequate answer when asked why he didn’t know what was going on, plus his very thin skin, that brought him down.
It's not quite as straightforward as that. Civil servants have to abide by a) the law, and b) the Civil Service Code of Conduct. If implementing a direct ministerial instruction contravenes either of those, then the civil servant may be entitled to disobey it. This has been known to happen, funnily enough.
A civil servant is entitled to refuse to action an illegal order.
Doing something entirely different to a legal order because they think it would be better is very different.
And I say that as somebody who yields to nobody in my utter contempt for this government.
So voters think the Tories are corrupt, BoJo is corrupt - and they think Labour and Keir Starmer are not corrupt.
And yet the Tories continue to lead.
Ergo, the voters don't give a toss. Depressing.
It doesn't quite follow. It's like the Yes Minister discussion. There is clever and dishonest, thick and honest, and thick and dishonest. Of course there should be Clever and honest. But, the punch line, 'Let me know if you find one'.
The public usually would choose Clever and Honest but would always choose Clever and Dishonest over the other options.
Sometimes even Clever and Honest is impossible as well as unavailable. For example, how could Brexit have been done at all given that there is no solution to the Ireland problem which doesn't breach red lines, without deception. Depressing. But not because voters don't care. They do.
There's also the issue of 'on our side' versus 'on their side'.
The left has a long history in this country of supporting anti-racism protests around the world. This isn't anything new, nor is it troubling.
Correction the left has a long history of supporting anit racism protests around the world where its happening in countries the left doesn't like. There fixed that for you. Where do we see the left taking the knee going uighar lives matter. Many more of them dying oh right china isn't a country they disapprove of so just ignore it. Then you wonder why most of us think you are hypocritical arses?
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
It is and with nearly 2/3 of the votes cast, I'm not disputing Labour's mandate to run the Borough.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
Westminster will never allow STV for local government because it risks people getting used to STV.
STV is unBritish, remember?
How do multi-member consituencies help on this issue?
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
As the war passes out of living memory, the commemoration is naturally going to change - get a bit wonkier, people putting their own spin on it. It will eventually be the same as Guy Fawkes night.
You'd think we'd be remembering those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and heroes like Lee Rigby.
I think it was probably Iraq that changed the culture around poppies. A lot of people were anti the Iraq war, but there was a backlash against the anti-war movement. I'm sure that some of this came from the wider establishment - equating any criticism of the war with criticising the poor bloody infantry - but also it was a backlash against some in the anti-war movement who wanted to see British troops defeated.
My impression is that is why poppyism is now about supporting the current serving soldiers, whereas in the past it was about remembering the dead from past conflicts and trying to avoid adding to that number.
I think it is perhaps part of a long-delayed move to begin to give better support for veterans, plus with the most famous and costly wars exiting from living memory and a perceived need to remember more carefuly.
I have no quarrel with either of those.
We expect our armed forces to be subject to trauma on our behalf, so it seems a reasonable deal to offer as godo a welfare set up as we can manage.
Ditto police officers and other uniformed services.
More than 1,000 deaths were processed at COVID-19 funeral facilities in Bhopal, India, during a 13-day period when government figures show only 41 deaths
And how many other countries are lying about their covid levels ?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It was just something that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Reasoning being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I suspect is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try to "ladybird logic" it away.
God, the logical contortions. Building bricks, trains, cars, tractors, balls, crayons and stickers aren't "male" things - they're just toys. Kids are learning dexterity and about the world around them, and how to express themselves. It's as simple as that. You don't have to try and retrofit everything to a rigid political theory.
Anyway, I have to sign off for the evening. Have fun.
Brain not engaged despite my plea. So those 'male' things are just things. Ok. And what about the 'female' things? - eg the dolls and toy pushchairs you mentioned - are they also just things? If so, what is your explanation for the fact that parents are more comfortable giving their daughters 'boy' toys than their sons 'girl' toys?
Just checking in. I spend time having a considered discussion with you, and it ends with you calling me "reactionary" - again.
There's nothing I can say to you that will ever move you away from your metropolitan North London left-wing shibboleths - and if the discussion goes somewhere you can't handle you just fall back on labels.
@MaxPB I'm interested in hearing your views on the Poppy stuff.
When I was growing up, armistice day and the build up was always a solemn occasion with people wearing poppy's out of respect for the dead. I liked it and felt it was very appropriate. It now feels very "americanised" and more about military triumphalism and showing how "respectful" you can be compared to your neighbours — who can wear the biggest poppy. To me that is very much against tradition.
Except that isn't the left...
I agree with that actually. It's similar to virtue signalling with rainbow lanyards or BLM badges to my mind. It's just of the right.
We need to relearn duty, proportion, balance and dignity.
Speaking with a young boy, the present he has reacted best to of all was a baby doll for his first birthday, who we literally could not get out of the packaging quickly enough once he had seen him. Once we managed that he hugged the baby right away.
My view is that any toy that is good for a girl's development is good for a boy's, and vice versa. The idea that certain toys, hobbies or sports are "for boys" and others "for girls" in either direction I imagine influences people not being comfortable that the sex they were born with represents them. We need to move away from masculine/feminine stereotypes of the sexes, while supporting those who are trans.
I'd comment that imposing sameness is really exactly the same type of decision as imposing difference. Both are in some measure ideological.
That to me is the core problem with diversity-mania; the salient characteristic seems to be an intolerance of diversity.
Open-list PR seems to have most of the advantages of STV, but should be faster to count (depending on how you implement it).
No constituencies though. I guess that matters less at local government level.
You could do open-list PR for relatively small multi-member constituencies if you wanted to. Say 5 MPs to a constituency, for the sake of argument, which would give you 130 UK constituencies, with an average population of about half a million. So, for example, Oxfordshire could be one constituency, electing 5 MPs via open-list PR, as would Edinburgh.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Well, that's bollocks because even if the former were true it would favour introducing girls to boys toys over the opposite and thus work against the power structure of the "Patriarchy".
Some people will look for gender, race and sexuality obsessions wherever they can. Perhaps you just need to get over your dogma, and let kids be kids.
Of course I'm happy for kids to be kids! It was just something that occurred to me (inspired by your post about your daughter) and I decided to float. Reasoning being as follows. If people are more concerned that their daughters are not stereotyped into 'female' things than they are that their sons are not stereotyped into 'male' things - which I suspect is the case and could be supported by what I postulated about toys being true - this could be because they recognize, whether they say so or not, that 'male' things are more valued by the society we live in than 'female' things. Which is a none too shabby shorthand for the Patriarchy. Don't get freaked by the wonkiness of the word, just have a think about it. No need to instinctively bridle and try to "ladybird logic" it away.
God, the logical contortions. Building bricks, trains, cars, tractors, balls, crayons and stickers aren't "male" things - they're just toys. Kids are learning dexterity and about the world around them, and how to express themselves. It's as simple as that. You don't have to try and retrofit everything to a rigid political theory.
Anyway, I have to sign off for the evening. Have fun.
Brain not engaged despite my plea. So those 'male' things are just things. Ok. And what about the 'female' things? - eg the dolls and toy pushchairs you mentioned - are they also just things? If so, what is your explanation for the fact that parents are more comfortable giving their daughters 'boy' toys than their sons 'girl' toys?
Just checking in. I spend time having a considered discussion with you, and it ends with you calling me "reactionary" - again.
There's nothing I can say to you that will ever move you away from your metropolitan North London left-wing shibboleths - and if the discussion goes somewhere you can't handle you just fall back on labels.
Newham is a one party state no? I agree that the representation in local government is pants, I have no answers though, maybe STV?
It is and with nearly 2/3 of the votes cast, I'm not disputing Labour's mandate to run the Borough.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
Westminster will never allow STV for local government because it risks people getting used to STV.
STV is unBritish, remember?
How do multi-member consituencies help on this issue?
STV in multi-member constituencies isn’t going to deliver a council with no opposition, unless one party gets a truly massive share of the vote.
Comments
Having reached this one point of agreement, it might be possible to reach others.
Among those aged over 70, 14,215 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 17,825 have received a first vaccination so that's just shy of 80%.
Among those over 50, 61,801 out of an estimated (NIMS) population of 88,113 have received a first vaccination which is just over 70%.
Essentially, there are 3,610 older people over 70 in my Borough with no protection from Covid-19. In addition, a further 22,200 people over 50 have no protection either at this time.
That concerns me as there's plenty of fuel for the next virus wave.
> India’s coronavirus second wave is rapidly sliding into a devastating crisis, with more than 300,000 new cases each day, a world record.
> But experts say the number is just a fraction of the virus’s real reach, and there is mounting evidence that the actual death toll is far higher than reported.
($) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/world/asia/india-coronavirus-deaths.html
Okay, Leicestershire are Leicestershire. And Surrey’s attack is having a poor season. But even Gloucestershire, who have variety, pace, skill to rival most teams with Worrall’s arrival, may have kept the scoring down to three an over but couldn’t knock them over for a par score.
So you begin to wonder who will.
My impression is that is why poppyism is now about supporting the current serving soldiers, whereas in the past it was about remembering the dead from past conflicts and trying to avoid adding to that number.
What I am concerned about is the 35% of those who voted who have no representation and the fact the only voices heard are Labour who have the temerity to sit up so-called "Citizens' Assemblies" which are a sop to democracy as the agendas are controlled by and the direction of the meetings set by Labour.
35% should equal around 20 Opposition Councillors who would at least have a voice and represent other opinions which are present in the Borough but which are currently marginalised.
I'm NOT suggesting PR for Westminster elections which are different but I am suggesting PR for local elections. STV is my preferred system - I don't see why it couldn't be used.
More than 1,000 deaths were processed at COVID-19 funeral facilities in Bhopal, India, during a 13-day period when government figures show only 41 deaths
From the FT re undercounting of deaths in India
STV is unBritish, remember?
In the Carrington case, it was largely that he didn’t have an adequate answer when asked why he didn’t know what was going on, plus his very thin skin, that brought him down.
You cannot waltz with a skunk and end up smelling like a rose. Just the opposite!
And while few would take Cummings at his word without evidence, appears that he's stored up a boatload of THAT. And is ready, willing & able to deploy it strategically - drip by drip by drip.
My view is that any toy that is good for a girl's development is good for a boy's, and vice versa. The idea that certain toys, hobbies or sports are "for boys" and others "for girls" in either direction I imagine influences people not being comfortable that the sex they were born with represents them. We need to move away from masculine/feminine stereotypes of the sexes, while supporting those who are trans.
The public usually would choose Clever and Honest but would always choose Clever and Dishonest over the other options.
Sometimes even Clever and Honest is impossible as well as unavailable. For example, how could Brexit have been done at all given that there is no solution to the Ireland problem which doesn't breach red lines, without deception. Depressing. But not because voters don't care. They do.
I think Starmer has more than a slight edge on intellect though.
Doing something entirely different to a legal order because they think it would be better is very different.
And I say that as somebody who yields to nobody in my utter contempt for this government.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1375892370751901697
What should be worrying for Starmer is that Opinium had Labour on 42% only a few months ago.
- 37% describe Boris Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt vs. 31% saying he is clean and honest
- people view Keir Starmer as less corrupt, with only 16% saying he is corrupt and 40% saying he clean and honest
Why is France continually showing more new infections than Italy but Italy showing more new deaths ?
Why are the Netherlands continually showing more new infections than Belgium but Belgium showing more new deaths ?
!!!
I have no quarrel with either of those.
We expect our armed forces to be subject to trauma on our behalf, so it seems a reasonable deal to offer as godo a welfare set up as we can manage.
Ditto police officers and other uniformed services.
There is plenty of data to support that.
And how many of them are on the travel red list ?
There's nothing I can say to you that will ever move you away from your metropolitan North London left-wing shibboleths - and if the discussion goes somewhere you can't handle you just fall back on labels.
You're a dogmatist. So you're not worth my time.
We need to relearn duty, proportion, balance and dignity.
That to me is the core problem with diversity-mania; the salient characteristic seems to be an intolerance of diversity.