One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build?
PB has known about this for months.
Wasn't one of Israel's problems that people were immediately going back to "normal" as soon as they had been jabbed?
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build.
PB has known about this for months.
Equally, they’ve been telling people who have had both doses and waited long enough for immunity to be “careful about how you hug”. It’s no wonder people’s risk behaviour is all over the place.
Matt Hancock toughens the Government line on foreign travel in light of the Indian variant to insist people "should not go to amber list countries unless they really have to". So not for holidays any longer. @TimesRadio https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1393863425172910081
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build.
PB has known about this for months.
Equally, they’ve been telling people who have had both doses and waited long enough for immunity to be “careful about how you hug”. It’s no wonder people’s risk behaviour is all over the place.
Definitely. The media are definitely to blame to but ultimately it's the government who is responsible for messaging.
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
The FTPA is going anyway. And Boris will seek re-election in 2023 simply because there is zero point waiting to the last second
and by doing any mayor will have a very awkward decision to make - return to parliament by resigning from being a mayor early or continue as mayor.
Burnham I suspect would continue as mayor so there really is little chance of Burnham or co solving Labour's leadership issues.
Thought you were right, so wanted to wanted to find some 2002/3 stories with DaveC future leader mentions..
I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )
Extending my search to 2004 there was this from August https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-314340/Love-Tory-Conservatives-golden-girl-married-man.html Which is a story about his stepfather-in-law having an affair with his boss's political secretary who happens to be his son's godmather. Usual political incest stuff. Says of Cameron "In her role as political adviser, one figure Miss Whetstone has helped promote is David Cameron, 37, the Conservative MP for Witney in Oxfordshire and a happily married father-of-two (with whom she is not involved romantically). Eton-educated Cameron, who is in charge of policy co-ordination for the party, is the stepson-in-law of Viscount Astor, 52, a former government whip and Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords." No potential future leader stuff. Somewhat amusingly followed by this about Boris "Three weeks before publication of his first novel, Seventy Two Virgins, preening Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson has uncharacteristically come over all modest. For I hear that at the last minute he has cut from the book, which is heavily autobiographical - the hero is a bicycle-riding MP - a number of sex scenes and details of an affair. Why could this be? According to publishing sources, twice married Boris was concerned that readers might take the louche behaviour in the novel too literally."
Again rather amusingly followed by a Boris take.. "Mr Johnson goes down a storm at Tory conference fringes, but his Dulux dog fringe is the main image the public have of him. His appearances on Have I Got News For You have obscured his political talents. Labour MPs are delighted at the idea that he could ever be a contender for leader. "It would be a dream come true if Boris became Tory leader. The man is a joke," one minister said recently."
But nothing else, and I've been through all 13 pages of hits on google for the 3 years..
Am I looking in the wrong place?
Probably. They were mostly oped pieces in the Times and the Telegraph. I don’t think they show up in public searches from that far back.
Edit - the first time I ever heard David Cameron’s name was in 2002. It was in a piece written by I think Rachel Sylvester who was lamenting the fact Duncan Smith’s Shadow cabinet consisted mostly of old, white not very capable people. She suggested a need to promote younger talent, specifically ‘Boris Johnson and the less well known but equally impressive David Cameron, both of whom are potential future leaders.’
I was intrigued enough by the comparison to do some fact finding, but thereafter it was interesting to note how often his name kept cropping up. His rise in 2005 came as no surprise to me.
"In his view his friend, David Cameron, with whom he cycles into work every day, is the solution. "At every election one party represents the past and another the future, David will represent the future," he says. Osborne and Cameron are often described as the Blair and Brown of the Tory party. The shadow chancellor, a relaxed optimist, is more like Mr Blair in character. But he decided that he was too young for the leadership." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494588/The-future-belongs-to-us-predicts-Tory-partys-young-star.html
From July 2005.
And it doesn't sound to me like she's been writing the same for three years.
Essentially, Labour needs a leader who embodies - who is a symbol - that it has changed. SKS was, but only in terms of his politics, not being Corbyn - but his having served alongside Corbyn that only takes the party so far. Otherwise, there’s very little change, being another white middle aged male from Labour North London.
I genuinely don't think voters care about the identity politics stuff. If Starmer had articulated any realistic, memorable ideas for making the country a better place, it wouldn't matter where he comes from or what colour his skin is. But he hasn't, and hasn't even pretended to.
I was thinking about the leadership as a symbol of change (think Ruth in Scotland) rather than about identity politics per se.
I think Ruth was popular because of her personality, in particular because of her optimism and lack of pomposity, not because of her identity.
I think that is missing the impact that the Scottish Tories were led by an out lesbian, and that they had chosen her, had in itself. As a symbol that it was no longer the ‘old’ staid Scottish Party, rather than anything to do with identity politics in itself.
I don't think her personal life was so much the point as that she was/is- like Mr Johnson - an experienced journalist and it showed for instance in her [edit] emphasis, compared to her predecessors, on photo opportunities (very like him). She also reorganised the Scottish party in her image to some extent, lots of young people in suits rather than older ones in tweeds.
I think her use of humour was key to her success as indeed it is with Boris. The vast majority of Brits are really not interested in politics and will forgive far too much for a decent laugh.
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build.
PB has known about this for months.
Equally, they’ve been telling people who have had both doses and waited long enough for immunity to be “careful about how you hug”. It’s no wonder people’s risk behaviour is all over the place.
Definitely. The media are definitely to blame to but ultimately it's the government who is responsible for messaging.
I think you should really have this hammered home when you go for your jab. I wasn't told anything of the sort nor were there any public information signs while I sat there waiting for 15 minutes.
Just have the jabber say, please be aware you gain no coverage at all for at least 3 weeks and then plaster the place with posters saying the same.
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build.
PB has known about this for months.
Equally, they’ve been telling people who have had both doses and waited long enough for immunity to be “careful about how you hug”. It’s no wonder people’s risk behaviour is all over the place.
Definitely. The media are definitely to blame to but ultimately it's the government who is responsible for messaging.
I think you should really have this hammered home when you go for your jab. I wasn't told anything of the sort nor were there any public information signs while I sat there waiting for 15 minutes.
Just have the jabber say, please be aware you gain no coverage at all for at least 3 weeks and then plaster the place with posters saying the same.
100% agree. A simple solution. It didn't matter when we were all in lockdown anyway, but now it definitely does matter...
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build.
PB has known about this for months.
Equally, they’ve been telling people who have had both doses and waited long enough for immunity to be “careful about how you hug”. It’s no wonder people’s risk behaviour is all over the place.
Definitely. The media are definitely to blame to but ultimately it's the government who is responsible for messaging.
It’s been said many times but it really doesn’t help that the government have allowed such conflicting messages to be casually aired by SAGE members. Nor that slimeballs like Gove and his allies brief off the record every day counter to the formal messaging, with the sole goal of climbing the greasy pole. It’s a shame he wasn’t thrown out the party the same time as Grieve.
I’m not a professional mathematician but my amateur back of a fag packet statistics tells me that based on those numbers the chances of the Indian variant being vaccine resistant are vanishingly low.
Hancock in chipper mood on the telly this morning. Sophy Ridge uncharacteristically annoying and (deliberately?) innumerate. I had to turn her off!
This quote isn't what he actually said (On Marr - might have phrased it differently elsewhere)
He said that of the 18 people in hospital in Bolton the majority were eligible but hadn't taken up the vaccine. (So that might be 10, and then there's 5 with one jab, and 1 with two jabs)
Thought you were right, so wanted to wanted to find some 2002/3 stories with DaveC future leader mentions..
I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )
Extending my search to 2004 there was this from August https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-314340/Love-Tory-Conservatives-golden-girl-married-man.html Which is a story about his stepfather-in-law having an affair with his boss's political secretary who happens to be his son's godmather. Usual political incest stuff. Says of Cameron "In her role as political adviser, one figure Miss Whetstone has helped promote is David Cameron, 37, the Conservative MP for Witney in Oxfordshire and a happily married father-of-two (with whom she is not involved romantically). Eton-educated Cameron, who is in charge of policy co-ordination for the party, is the stepson-in-law of Viscount Astor, 52, a former government whip and Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords." No potential future leader stuff. Somewhat amusingly followed by this about Boris "Three weeks before publication of his first novel, Seventy Two Virgins, preening Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson has uncharacteristically come over all modest. For I hear that at the last minute he has cut from the book, which is heavily autobiographical - the hero is a bicycle-riding MP - a number of sex scenes and details of an affair. Why could this be? According to publishing sources, twice married Boris was concerned that readers might take the louche behaviour in the novel too literally."
Again rather amusingly followed by a Boris take.. "Mr Johnson goes down a storm at Tory conference fringes, but his Dulux dog fringe is the main image the public have of him. His appearances on Have I Got News For You have obscured his political talents. Labour MPs are delighted at the idea that he could ever be a contender for leader. "It would be a dream come true if Boris became Tory leader. The man is a joke," one minister said recently."
But nothing else, and I've been through all 13 pages of hits on google for the 3 years..
Am I looking in the wrong place?
Probably. They were mostly oped pieces in the Times and the Telegraph. I don’t think they show up in public searches from that far back.
Edit - the first time I ever heard David Cameron’s name was in 2002. It was in a piece written by I think Rachel Sylvester who was lamenting the fact Duncan Smith’s Shadow cabinet consisted mostly of old, white not very capable people. She suggested a need to promote younger talent, specifically ‘Boris Johnson and the less well known but equally impressive David Cameron, both of whom are potential future leaders.’
I was intrigued enough by the comparison to do some fact finding, but thereafter it was interesting to note how often his name kept cropping up. His rise in 2005 came as no surprise to me.
"In his view his friend, David Cameron, with whom he cycles into work every day, is the solution. "At every election one party represents the past and another the future, David will represent the future," he says. Osborne and Cameron are often described as the Blair and Brown of the Tory party. The shadow chancellor, a relaxed optimist, is more like Mr Blair in character. But he decided that he was too young for the leadership." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494588/The-future-belongs-to-us-predicts-Tory-partys-young-star.html
From July 2005.
And it doesn't sound to me like she's been writing the same for three years.
Essentially, Labour needs a leader who embodies - who is a symbol - that it has changed. SKS was, but only in terms of his politics, not being Corbyn - but his having served alongside Corbyn that only takes the party so far. Otherwise, there’s very little change, being another white middle aged male from Labour North London.
I genuinely don't think voters care about the identity politics stuff. If Starmer had articulated any realistic, memorable ideas for making the country a better place, it wouldn't matter where he comes from or what colour his skin is. But he hasn't, and hasn't even pretended to.
I was thinking about the leadership as a symbol of change (think Ruth in Scotland) rather than about identity politics per se.
I think Ruth was popular because of her personality, in particular because of her optimism and lack of pomposity, not because of her identity.
I think that is missing the impact that the Scottish Tories were led by an out lesbian, and that they had chosen her, had in itself. As a symbol that it was no longer the ‘old’ staid Scottish Party, rather than anything to do with identity politics in itself.
I don't think her personal life was so much the point as that she was/is- like Mr Johnson - an experienced journalist and it showed for instance in her [edit] emphasis, compared to her predecessors, on photo opportunities (very like him). She also reorganised the Scottish party in her image to some extent, lots of young people in suits rather than older ones in tweeds.
I think her use of humour was key to her success as indeed it is with Boris. The vast majority of Brits are really not interested in politics and will forgive far too much for a decent laugh.
Thought you were right, so wanted to wanted to find some 2002/3 stories with DaveC future leader mentions..
I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )
Extending my search to 2004 there was this from August https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-314340/Love-Tory-Conservatives-golden-girl-married-man.html Which is a story about his stepfather-in-law having an affair with his boss's political secretary who happens to be his son's godmather. Usual political incest stuff. Says of Cameron "In her role as political adviser, one figure Miss Whetstone has helped promote is David Cameron, 37, the Conservative MP for Witney in Oxfordshire and a happily married father-of-two (with whom she is not involved romantically). Eton-educated Cameron, who is in charge of policy co-ordination for the party, is the stepson-in-law of Viscount Astor, 52, a former government whip and Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords." No potential future leader stuff. Somewhat amusingly followed by this about Boris "Three weeks before publication of his first novel, Seventy Two Virgins, preening Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson has uncharacteristically come over all modest. For I hear that at the last minute he has cut from the book, which is heavily autobiographical - the hero is a bicycle-riding MP - a number of sex scenes and details of an affair. Why could this be? According to publishing sources, twice married Boris was concerned that readers might take the louche behaviour in the novel too literally."
Again rather amusingly followed by a Boris take.. "Mr Johnson goes down a storm at Tory conference fringes, but his Dulux dog fringe is the main image the public have of him. His appearances on Have I Got News For You have obscured his political talents. Labour MPs are delighted at the idea that he could ever be a contender for leader. "It would be a dream come true if Boris became Tory leader. The man is a joke," one minister said recently."
But nothing else, and I've been through all 13 pages of hits on google for the 3 years..
Am I looking in the wrong place?
Probably. They were mostly oped pieces in the Times and the Telegraph. I don’t think they show up in public searches from that far back.
Edit - the first time I ever heard David Cameron’s name was in 2002. It was in a piece written by I think Rachel Sylvester who was lamenting the fact Duncan Smith’s Shadow cabinet consisted mostly of old, white not very capable people. She suggested a need to promote younger talent, specifically ‘Boris Johnson and the less well known but equally impressive David Cameron, both of whom are potential future leaders.’
I was intrigued enough by the comparison to do some fact finding, but thereafter it was interesting to note how often his name kept cropping up. His rise in 2005 came as no surprise to me.
"In his view his friend, David Cameron, with whom he cycles into work every day, is the solution. "At every election one party represents the past and another the future, David will represent the future," he says. Osborne and Cameron are often described as the Blair and Brown of the Tory party. The shadow chancellor, a relaxed optimist, is more like Mr Blair in character. But he decided that he was too young for the leadership." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494588/The-future-belongs-to-us-predicts-Tory-partys-young-star.html
From July 2005.
And it doesn't sound to me like she's been writing the same for three years.
Essentially, Labour needs a leader who embodies - who is a symbol - that it has changed. SKS was, but only in terms of his politics, not being Corbyn - but his having served alongside Corbyn that only takes the party so far. Otherwise, there’s very little change, being another white middle aged male from Labour North London.
I genuinely don't think voters care about the identity politics stuff. If Starmer had articulated any realistic, memorable ideas for making the country a better place, it wouldn't matter where he comes from or what colour his skin is. But he hasn't, and hasn't even pretended to.
I was thinking about the leadership as a symbol of change (think Ruth in Scotland) rather than about identity politics per se.
I think Ruth was popular because of her personality, in particular because of her optimism and lack of pomposity, not because of her identity.
I think that is missing the impact that the Scottish Tories were led by an out lesbian, and that they had chosen her, had in itself. As a symbol that it was no longer the ‘old’ staid Scottish Party, rather than anything to do with identity politics in itself.
I don't think her personal life was so much the point as that she was/is- like Mr Johnson - an experienced journalist and it showed for instance in her [edit] emphasis, compared to her predecessors, on photo opportunities (very like him). She also reorganised the Scottish party in her image to some extent, lots of young people in suits rather than older ones in tweeds.
I think her use of humour was key to her success as indeed it is with Boris. The vast majority of Brits are really not interested in politics and will forgive far too much for a decent laugh.
That too, indeed.
I think his failure to answer anything when he hasn't got a script is beginning to get annoying to more people, though.
It's always annoyed me, but I haven't found him clever or amusing for a long while. Although, TBF, that was always unlikely!
I’m not a professional mathematician but my amateur back of a fag packet statistics tells me that based on those numbers the chances of the Indian variant being vaccine resistant are vanishingly low.
Hancock in chipper mood on the telly this morning. Sophy Ridge uncharacteristically annoying and (deliberately?) innumerate. I had to turn her off!
This quote isn't what he actually said (On Marr - might have phrased it differently elsewhere)
He said that of the 18 people in hospital in Bolton the majority were eligible but hadn't taken up the vaccine. (So that might be 10, and then there's 5 with one jab, and 1 with two jabs)
I must say the idea that we continue to lock down the country because 18 people in Bolton are in hospital, the majority of whom chose not to take the vaccine when they could have is just off the wall to me. The test is supposed to be threats to the NHS being overwhelmed. We are so far from that now its really absurd.
We have seen the exit door more than half open and no sane politician is going to try and close it again. An acceleration in vaccination seems to be on the cards and is a much better solution.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
For me, SKS's future really turns on Batley & Spens. If Labour hold on there then he will probably not only get Nick's additional year, he will very likely lead Labour into the next election. But it's hard to see him survive another byelection defeat.
At the moment the Tories are favourites in that seat. I think it's a much, much tougher nut to crack than Hartlepool but the odds are marginally in favour of there being a Labour leadership contest this year at the moment. The field is uninspiring at best which is presumably why people are looking at people who will not even be eligible like the King of the North.
Batley and Spen is only important at this moment in time if it is "bigged up" enough. And sure enough the Tory right and the Labour left are bigging it up
My biggest beef against Starmer is that for the Leader of the Opposition he has done very little opposing of this Johnson Government.
If I was a Johnson shill, I would be content with the status quo, and rather than pushing the opinion that Starmer needs to go, I would be singing his praises in anticipation of the 2023/24 spanking Johnson will administer to him. It seems a strange dichotomy that Johnsonians want Starmer replaced by a "winner".
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
I think the FTPA requires an election by May 2024.
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
Completely agreed mate, companies are too ready to hire the finished article for not enough money. If the wages are low then being trained is part of the package. When I came into banking I accepted a fairly junior role but part of that was getting training and experience in a whole new industry.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
As a once-upon-a-time small business owner I'd say the rot started when the 1979 Conservative Govt abolished the Industrial Training Boards.
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build.
PB has known about this for months.
Equally, they’ve been telling people who have had both doses and waited long enough for immunity to be “careful about how you hug”. It’s no wonder people’s risk behaviour is all over the place.
Definitely. The media are definitely to blame to but ultimately it's the government who is responsible for messaging.
I think you should really have this hammered home when you go for your jab. I wasn't told anything of the sort nor were there any public information signs while I sat there waiting for 15 minutes.
Just have the jabber say, please be aware you gain no coverage at all for at least 3 weeks and then plaster the place with posters saying the same.
Exactly the same in Spain - zero info given beyond to be back for the 2nd AZN jab in 12 weeks.
For me, SKS's future really turns on Batley & Spens. If Labour hold on there then he will probably not only get Nick's additional year, he will very likely lead Labour into the next election. But it's hard to see him survive another byelection defeat.
At the moment the Tories are favourites in that seat. I think it's a much, much tougher nut to crack than Hartlepool but the odds are marginally in favour of there being a Labour leadership contest this year at the moment. The field is uninspiring at best which is presumably why people are looking at people who will not even be eligible like the King of the North.
Batley and Spen is only important at this moment in time if it is "bigged up" enough. And sure enough the Tory right and the Labour left are bigging it up
My biggest beef against Starmer is that for the Leader of the Opposition he has done very little opposing of this Johnson Government.
If I was a Johnson shill, I would be content with the status quo, and rather than pushing the opinion that Starmer needs to go, I would be singing his praises in anticipation of the 2023/24 spanking Johnson will administer to him. It seems a strange dichotomy that Johnsonians want Starmer replaced by a "winner".
Don’t know what the tribalists want. But I want a healthy, functioning democracy. And that requires a capable government-in-waiting to hold the executive’s feet to the fire.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
The issue is that even with apprenticeship levys most companies want the finished product now. They also don't want to pay people the market rate unless they have to.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
I’m not a professional mathematician but my amateur back of a fag packet statistics tells me that based on those numbers the chances of the Indian variant being vaccine resistant are vanishingly low.
Hancock in chipper mood on the telly this morning. Sophy Ridge uncharacteristically annoying and (deliberately?) innumerate. I had to turn her off!
This quote isn't what he actually said (On Marr - might have phrased it differently elsewhere)
He said that of the 18 people in hospital in Bolton the majority were eligible but hadn't taken up the vaccine. (So that might be 10, and then there's 5 with one jab, and 1 with two jabs)
He said “vast majority” on Sophy Ridge. I have no reason to believe the numbers Carlotta has cited are incorrect. Are you suggesting that they are?
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
I think the FTPA requires an election by May 2024.
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
Do we know yet what the ending of the FTPA means? Will Parliaments be able to last more than 5 years? It used to be the case, but wasn't that ended by the FTPA?
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
For me, SKS's future really turns on Batley & Spens. If Labour hold on there then he will probably not only get Nick's additional year, he will very likely lead Labour into the next election. But it's hard to see him survive another byelection defeat.
At the moment the Tories are favourites in that seat. I think it's a much, much tougher nut to crack than Hartlepool but the odds are marginally in favour of there being a Labour leadership contest this year at the moment. The field is uninspiring at best which is presumably why people are looking at people who will not even be eligible like the King of the North.
Batley and Spen is only important at this moment in time if it is "bigged up" enough. And sure enough the Tory right and the Labour left are bigging it up
My biggest beef against Starmer is that for the Leader of the Opposition he has done very little opposing of this Johnson Government.
If I was a Johnson shill, I would be content with the status quo, and rather than pushing the opinion that Starmer needs to go, I would be singing his praises in anticipation of the 2023/24 spanking Johnson will administer to him. It seems a strange dichotomy that Johnsonians want Starmer replaced by a "winner".
Don’t know what the tribalists want. But I want a healthy, functioning democracy. And that requires a capable government-in-waiting to hold the executive’s feet to the fire.
I don't think they would say that, unless of course they are taking a leaf out of their hero's book and lying through their teeth.
I’m not a professional mathematician but my amateur back of a fag packet statistics tells me that based on those numbers the chances of the Indian variant being vaccine resistant are vanishingly low.
Hancock in chipper mood on the telly this morning. Sophy Ridge uncharacteristically annoying and (deliberately?) innumerate. I had to turn her off!
This quote isn't what he actually said (On Marr - might have phrased it differently elsewhere)
He said that of the 18 people in hospital in Bolton the majority were eligible but hadn't taken up the vaccine. (So that might be 10, and then there's 5 with one jab, and 1 with two jabs)
He said “vast majority” on Sophy Ridge. I have no reason to believe the numbers Carlotta has cited are incorrect. Are you suggesting that they are?
Just that what he said on Marr wasn't what the quote said. He said there were 18 people in total whereas the quote says that of the unspecified number in hospital 18 were eligible but hadn't taken up the vaccine. Just different things. I've no view or knowledge of what the truth is - I was just pointing out the discrepancy.
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build?
PB has known about this for months.
Wasn't one of Israel's problems that people were immediately going back to "normal" as soon as they had been jabbed?
Correct. Positive tests actually rose at the start of Israel’s programme because the Israelis were holding vaccine dinner parties the evening after they were jabbed. Protection at that stage: nil.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
The issue is that even with apprenticeship levys most companies want the finished product now. They also don't want to pay people the market rate unless they have to.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
Most managers are lazy and hire people to do the things they can’t be arsed doing themselves. Or they are control freaks who are crap at delegating. The last thing either group want to do is spend their time training someone.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
The issue is that even with apprenticeship levys most companies want the finished product now. They also don't want to pay people the market rate unless they have to.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
A little over-simplistic. Most companies seeking staff 'need the finished product now'.
I'm not sure that having people work for the same firm for their lifetime is the best way forward.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
One of the Radio 1 presenters eagerly proclaimed on the radio the other day that since he had 1 jab a few days ago, he was off to see his parents this weekend.
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build?
PB has known about this for months.
Wasn't one of Israel's problems that people were immediately going back to "normal" as soon as they had been jabbed?
Correct. Positive tests actually rose at the start of Israel’s programme because the Israelis were holding vaccine dinner parties the evening after they were jabbed. Protection at that stage: nil.
My parents said lots of their friends started inviting people around literally a few days after they had had their first jab, rationalizing by saying they were only inviting other people who had had their jab....shakes head.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
Agreed. Most often, things that *must* happen, don't.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
For me, SKS's future really turns on Batley & Spens. If Labour hold on there then he will probably not only get Nick's additional year, he will very likely lead Labour into the next election. But it's hard to see him survive another byelection defeat.
At the moment the Tories are favourites in that seat. I think it's a much, much tougher nut to crack than Hartlepool but the odds are marginally in favour of there being a Labour leadership contest this year at the moment. The field is uninspiring at best which is presumably why people are looking at people who will not even be eligible like the King of the North.
Batley and Spen is only important at this moment in time if it is "bigged up" enough. And sure enough the Tory right and the Labour left are bigging it up
My biggest beef against Starmer is that for the Leader of the Opposition he has done very little opposing of this Johnson Government.
If I was a Johnson shill, I would be content with the status quo, and rather than pushing the opinion that Starmer needs to go, I would be singing his praises in anticipation of the 2023/24 spanking Johnson will administer to him. It seems a strange dichotomy that Johnsonians want Starmer replaced by a "winner".
There is undoubtedly an element of those on the right simply wishing more chaos and uncertainty on the left. I suspect those around Boris will be quite happy if SKS stays in post. They think, rightly or wrongly, that they have the beating of him.
What I want is a serious and credible opposition that will force the government to raise its game and get rid of some of the complete numpties in their ranks. We get better government that way and people have a credible choice. In this respect Labour cannot lose sight of what an improvement SKS is from Corbyn. I am not personally seeing a blindingly obvious replacement at the moment, certainly not in Parliament and therefore eligible.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
As a once-upon-a-time small business owner I'd say the rot started when the 1979 Conservative Govt abolished the Industrial Training Boards.
Another path to training was closed off when student fees were ramped up. The Thatcher government would send (some) unemployed people on HE/FE courses and could do so without creating a perverse incentive to jack in your job in order to save a £10,000 fee.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
Boris is lucky gravitas was not required to replace Theresa May.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
And Hancock did say that vaccines at 97% effective obviously means to 3% are not
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
Boris is lucky gravitas was not required to replace Theresa May.
Yeah but... we don't want our own Boris in the hilarious form of Richard Burgon, do we?
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
Media in the UK is all about the gotcha moment. Few journalists actually care about informing the public any longer. They just want politicians to have to row back on something they said earlier or try and get them to make a mistake live on air that they can put on social media.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
Media in the UK is all about the gotcha moment. Few journalists actually care about informing the public any longer. They just want politicians to have to row back on something they said earlier or try and get them to make a mistake live on air that they can put on social media.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
And of course it achieves absolutely nothing....other than some retweets.
They can't even say it is driving audience figures, Sky News figures are through the floor. Adam Boulton regularly gets less 100k people watching his "flagship" show.
There are twats on the Youtube filming themselves talking about politics into an iPhone that get more views than that.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
What about Steve Kinnock? He has a relatively safe seat and he's photogenic? He's a bit europey but he recognised that Corbynism sucked.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
What about Steve Kinnock? He has a relatively safe seat and he's photogenic? He's a bit europey but he recognised that Corbynism sucked.
Too remainery to win back the red wall and the name won't play well with the middle classes.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
What about Steve Kinnock? He has a relatively safe seat and he's photogenic? He's a bit europey but he recognised that Corbynism sucked.
Too remainery to win back the red wall and the name won't play well with the middle classes.
When I have heard him interviewed he is also totally uninspiring.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
What about Steve Kinnock? He has a relatively safe seat and he's photogenic? He's a bit europey but he recognised that Corbynism sucked.
Too remainery to win back the red wall and the name won't play well with the middle classes.
I doubt many people under 35 know who Neil Kinnock was, but fair point.
The issue is that almost everyone in the Labour Party is a "remainer" so that can't be an absolute bar forever.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
It wasn’t just the Labour Party. I found the Brexit debate bewildering, because highly intelligent people refused to concede this very obvious upside to leaving the Single Market, even if doing so causes other downsides. In most cases, they still refuse to concede this point. There’s an extraordinary lack of political empathy in general.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
The issue is that even with apprenticeship levys most companies want the finished product now. They also don't want to pay people the market rate unless they have to.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
I preferred untrained so I didn’t have to row back the stuff others did. Plus I didn’t have the “I know this shite” attitude and got people who wanted to learn new stuff.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
What about Steve Kinnock? He has a relatively safe seat and he's photogenic? He's a bit europey but he recognised that Corbynism sucked.
Too remainery to win back the red wall and the name won't play well with the middle classes.
I doubt many people under 35 know who Neil Kinnock was, but fair point.
The issue is that almost everyone in the Labour Party is a "remainer" so that can't be an absolute bar forever.
And there in lies the problem for Labour...its like the Tories significant time out of power, everybody who stepped forward came with a load of baggage from things like Black Wednesday that Labour could point out. Even when Cameron came on the scene, he had to overcome the fact he was once an adviser to Norman Lamont.
People are overestimating the chances of Starmer going, regardless of Batley & Spen. It is far more likely than not that he'll be leading into the GE.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
I don't see anyone with a great deal of gravitas to replace Starmer. The best PM in waiting is Steve Kinnock's wife.
What about Steve Kinnock? He has a relatively safe seat and he's photogenic? He's a bit europey but he recognised that Corbynism sucked.
His wife is the brains behind the operation. He's a bit too much of a chip off the old block. But Corbyn emptied the gene pool, so we are where we are.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
The issue is that even with apprenticeship levys most companies want the finished product now. They also don't want to pay people the market rate unless they have to.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
I preferred untrained so I didn’t have to row back the stuff others did. Plus I didn’t have the “I know this shite” attitude and got people who wanted to learn new stuff.
The problem with that is that it is essentially indirect age discrimination, and doesn't help people who want to retrain. You're basically wanting fresh young people, rather than say, a 40 year old who has been made redundant?
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
I think the FTPA requires an election by May 2024.
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
Do we know yet what the ending of the FTPA means? Will Parliaments be able to last more than 5 years? It used to be the case, but wasn't that ended by the FTPA?
We don't know, but the idea is to return things as close as possible to the previous state of affairs.
i.e. maximum 5 years, but other than that at the whim of the PM.
That poll doesn't make that conclusion at all, although that doesn't mean it isn't true. More bollocks journalism.
Just because people think the Labour Party is "more likely" to support a specific policy, that doesn't mean anything in of itself.
Labour are doing nothing to distance themselves from these positions though. And as to the previous point that Labour is not going to be able to get away from remainer leaders, it's not an issue if they back a policy of not accepting the existing deal and not reopening it, not signing up to anything that looks like or replicates the single market or customs union or EU membership through the back door.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
Media in the UK is all about the gotcha moment. Few journalists actually care about informing the public any longer. They just want politicians to have to row back on something they said earlier or try and get them to make a mistake live on air that they can put on social media.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
And of course it achieves absolutely nothing....other than some retweets.
They can't even say it is driving audience figures, Sky News figures are through the floor. Adam Boulton regularly gets less 100k people watching his "flagship" show.
There are twats on the Youtube filming themselves talking about politics into an iPhone that get more views than that.
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Burnham has positioned himself brilliantly on Brexit, and had the good sense to escape Parliament prior to all the fun and games.
The only issue he has, as has been highlighted, is that he has no route back into the Commons without resigning as mayor. Perhaps he's happy to wait until after the next GE.
In fact it might be better for him to run as an MP at the next election, witness a probably loss, and then takeover as leader in the inevitable leadership contest, assuming he is still highly regarded.
Are any MPs in Greater Manchester looking to retire at the next GE? He could even run in Leigh, although that would be risky. However if he can't win Leigh, he can't be PM.
Labour are doing nothing to distance themselves from these positions though. And as to the previous point that Labour is not going to be able to get away from remainer leaders, it's not an issue if they back a policy of not accepting the existing deal and not reopening it, not signing up to anything that looks like or replicates the single market or customs union or EU membership through the back door.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
This also encourages a false perception in the EU that Brexit is just about Johnson and as soon as he's gone, they will have a more compliant UK government.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
It wasn’t just the Labour Party. I found the Brexit debate bewildering, because highly intelligent people refused to concede this very obvious upside to leaving the Single Market, even if doing so causes other downsides. In most cases, they still refuse to concede this point. There’s an extraordinary lack of political empathy in general.
As a pharmacist, one time Remainer and now Rejoiner, I have, perhaps oddly, some sympathy with this. Free Movement, plus interchangeable qualifications, meant that countries with an over-production of pharmacists could export their 'surplus' to the UK, and companies keen to supply pharmacies as add-on's to supermarkets took advantage. They paid above the going rate in the likes of Spain and then Czechoslovakia, where young pharmacists were waiting for 'dead mans shoes' because the opening of new pharmacies was much more strictly controlled than in UK, but below the rate expected in UK, which depressed the rates and conditions available to newly qualified British pharmacists. Now rates are, I understand, rising again.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
Media in the UK is all about the gotcha moment. Few journalists actually care about informing the public any longer. They just want politicians to have to row back on something they said earlier or try and get them to make a mistake live on air that they can put on social media.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
The questions from the public at the PM's press conference are almost invariably better than the journalists - mainly because they are seeking to elicit information, rather than score points.
That poll doesn't make that conclusion at all, although that doesn't mean it isn't true. More bollocks journalism.
Just because people think the Labour Party is "more likely" to support a specific policy, that doesn't mean anything in of itself.
Labour are doing nothing to distance themselves from these positions though. And as to the previous point that Labour is not going to be able to get away from remainer leaders, it's not an issue if they back a policy of not accepting the existing deal and not reopening it, not signing up to anything that looks like or replicates the single market or customs union or EU membership through the back door.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
While that may be true, that poll doesn't tell us that.
I would vote that Labour are "more likely" to support ridiculous policies such as renaming breastfeeding as "chestfeeding" (note, this is on the same level as "YOU CANT SAY BA BA BLACKSHEEP ANYMORE hurr durr"), but that doesn't mean I actually think the Labour Party are going to legislate on that.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
Media in the UK is all about the gotcha moment. Few journalists actually care about informing the public any longer. They just want politicians to have to row back on something they said earlier or try and get them to make a mistake live on air that they can put on social media.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
The questions from the public at the PM's press conference are almost invariably better than the journalists - mainly because they are seeking to elicit information, rather than score points.
Its a good job they don't let us PBers loose on Boris, Hancock and co :-)
Labour are doing nothing to distance themselves from these positions though. And as to the previous point that Labour is not going to be able to get away from remainer leaders, it's not an issue if they back a policy of not accepting the existing deal and not reopening it, not signing up to anything that looks like or replicates the single market or customs union or EU membership through the back door.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
This also encourages a false perception in the EU that Brexit is just about Johnson and as soon as he's gone, they will have a more compliant UK government.
Indeed, there is clearly a hope within the commission that if they can just last out Boris then they can do a deal with whatever pushover leader follows. That myth will take time to dispell and in the meantime it just makes it more difficult to get the EU to give up on border pedantry. I read somewhere that the EU is currently checking 30% of food/fish imports from the UK and only checks 1% from NZ. This despite the UK being basically in full alignment with EU food regulations because the government hasn't changed them a single bit since leaving.
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
I think the FTPA requires an election by May 2024.
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
Do we know yet what the ending of the FTPA means? Will Parliaments be able to last more than 5 years? It used to be the case, but wasn't that ended by the FTPA?
We don't know, but the idea is to return things as close as possible to the previous state of affairs.
i.e. maximum 5 years, but other than that at the whim of the PM.
The irony being that in the period that was supposed to be covered by the first fully "fixed term" Parliament of 2015-20 we had two General Elections anyway.
Burnham has positioned himself brilliantly on Brexit, and had the good sense to escape Parliament prior to all the fun and games.
The only issue he has, as has been highlighted, is that he has no route back into the Commons without resigning as mayor. Perhaps he's happy to wait until after the next GE.
In fact it might be better for him to run as an MP at the next election, witness a probably loss, and then takeover as leader in the inevitable leadership contest, assuming he is still highly regarded.
Are any MPs in Greater Manchester looking to retire at the next GE? He could even run in Leigh, although that would be risky. However if he can't win Leigh, he can't be PM.
I can't see any way for Burnham to get back into the Commons before the next election without looking ridiculous for giving up the GM mayoralty fairly soon after being elected to it.
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
I have heard that there is a growing feeling among foreign residents that the government’s actions are being made not just with casual indifference to them but open hostility. Covid being used as a lever to reduce the foreign worker population, which has been on the agenda a while in Singapore. And it’s working, with the resentment likely to be permanent.
Those here who call for hard Uk border policies because they’re wetting their beds about variants, would do well to pause and consider. Johnson has his faults but we are mighty lucky to have an outward looking and pro immigration PM at this current moment.
Labour are doing nothing to distance themselves from these positions though. And as to the previous point that Labour is not going to be able to get away from remainer leaders, it's not an issue if they back a policy of not accepting the existing deal and not reopening it, not signing up to anything that looks like or replicates the single market or customs union or EU membership through the back door.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
This also encourages a false perception in the EU that Brexit is just about Johnson and as soon as he's gone, they will have a more compliant UK government.
The EU is going to be in for a shock if the Tories pick a real headbanger for their next leader.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
It wasn’t just the Labour Party. I found the Brexit debate bewildering, because highly intelligent people refused to concede this very obvious upside to leaving the Single Market, even if doing so causes other downsides. In most cases, they still refuse to concede this point. There’s an extraordinary lack of political empathy in general.
Because it didn't affect them. Look at the ranks of the hard-core Remainers in Parliament on the Conservative side, mainly barristers. Quite happy to extol free movement and lifting restrictions on labour but very mute when it came to supporting reforms to open up their own profession.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
It wasn’t just the Labour Party. I found the Brexit debate bewildering, because highly intelligent people refused to concede this very obvious upside to leaving the Single Market, even if doing so causes other downsides. In most cases, they still refuse to concede this point. There’s an extraordinary lack of political empathy in general.
Because it didn't affect them. Look at the ranks of the hard-core Remainers in Parliament on the Conservative side, mainly barristers. Quite happy to extol free movement and lifting restrictions on labour but very mute when it came to supporting reforms to open up their own profession.
It's funny that the bar is one of the most insular professions going with so many bottlenecks and barriers for participation. You could call them "border controls".
I have sympathy with Starmer. Covid is like a war. It is difficult to criticise the government at the moment.
Starmer has criticised the government loads, the problem is his positions are so often inconsistent and smacks of whinging about stuff that should of been done all in hindsight. The one big "proactive" position he took was a firebreak, which is a flawed policy.
Imagine if Labour had from the start had proposed total closing of the border as they did in Australia and New Zealand? They would have been able to hammer the government from pillar to post over this. Of course they didn't and even now they will say things about the need to be tougher, but nothing concrete. They won't for instance go for total border closure, 100% hotel quarantine, rule out out foreign holidays this year.
That poll doesn't make that conclusion at all, although that doesn't mean it isn't true. More bollocks journalism.
Just because people think the Labour Party is "more likely" to support a specific policy, that doesn't mean anything in of itself.
Labour are doing nothing to distance themselves from these positions though. And as to the previous point that Labour is not going to be able to get away from remainer leaders, it's not an issue if they back a policy of not accepting the existing deal and not reopening it, not signing up to anything that looks like or replicates the single market or customs union or EU membership through the back door.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
While that may be true, that poll doesn't tell us that.
I would vote that Labour are "more likely" to support ridiculous policies such as renaming breastfeeding as "chestfeeding" (note, this is on the same level as "YOU CANT SAY BA BA BLACKSHEEP ANYMORE hurr durr"), but that doesn't mean I actually think the Labour Party are going to legislate on that.
That's all I was saying.
The poll even excludes "don't knows".
Perception is a huge part of winning people over. The current perception is that Labour are on the wrong side of voters for loads of key cultural issues. Whether or not it's true the party needs to step up and set the record straight, if they don't then people will, fairly or unfairly, assume that Labour is what they are perceived to be - the party if the woke lefty that wants to send your kids in for gender reassignment.
Burnham has positioned himself brilliantly on Brexit, and had the good sense to escape Parliament prior to all the fun and games.
The only issue he has, as has been highlighted, is that he has no route back into the Commons without resigning as mayor. Perhaps he's happy to wait until after the next GE.
In fact it might be better for him to run as an MP at the next election, witness a probably loss, and then takeover as leader in the inevitable leadership contest, assuming he is still highly regarded.
Are any MPs in Greater Manchester looking to retire at the next GE? He could even run in Leigh, although that would be risky. However if he can't win Leigh, he can't be PM.
I can't see any way for Burnham to get back into the Commons before the next election without looking ridiculous for giving up the GM mayoralty fairly soon after being elected to it.
Definitely. That's why I think the plan must be for after the next GE, but that would require him to become an MP at the next election.
Perhaps there's betting opportunities here. Burnham for next Labour leader would work if Keir stays in post until the next GE.
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
It wasn’t just the Labour Party. I found the Brexit debate bewildering, because highly intelligent people refused to concede this very obvious upside to leaving the Single Market, even if doing so causes other downsides. In most cases, they still refuse to concede this point. There’s an extraordinary lack of political empathy in general.
Because it didn't affect them. Look at the ranks of the hard-core Remainers in Parliament on the Conservative side, mainly barristers. Quite happy to extol free movement and lifting restrictions on labour but very mute when it came to supporting reforms to open up their own profession.
It's funny that the bar is one of the most insular professions going with so many bottlenecks and barriers for participation. You could call them "border controls".
Well exactly. The system is deliberately intended to act as such.
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
1. Reading lots of speculation about B1617.2, some informed, lots that isn’t. At present in parts of Scotland we have rise in cases associated with s-gene positivity. This is different from recent experience with high stable proportion s-gene target failure due to dominance B117
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
The Lib Dems....no laughing at the back....No, I think the death of the Labour Party, as has previously written about the Tories, is premature. On top of general perception of policy positions that align with 30% of the electorate, the long tradition of the party and name recognition, money...there are no other left of centre parties who have the cash that Labour can raise from both the unions and private individuals.
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
So we are literally down to South Korea as the only country to "beat" COVID without becoming a prison island, and even they are bouncing along at 500 cases a day. The difference is they appear to manage to keep it from ever going exponential.
Oh and Nigeria...perhaps...maybe....are they actually testing anybody?
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
The Lib Dems....no laughing at the back....No, I think the death of the Labour Party, as has previously written about the Tories, is premature. On top of general perception of policy positions that align with 30% of the electorate, the long tradition of the party and name recognition, money...there are no other left of centre parties who have the cash that Labour can raise from both the unions and private individuals.
In the long-run, a woke but pro-business party could be successful, both electorally and in terms of donations. A bit like the US Democrats. The party could align with Gen Z entrepreneurism and individualism. No chance of that in the short-term though.
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
The Lib Dems....no laughing at the back....No, I think the death of the Labour Party, as has previously written about the Tories, is premature.
This is is why labour supporters trying to get a so called progressive alliance is shrewd on labours behalf. It’s more about cementing labour as one of the two main parties, neutering the green advance and making the Lib Dem party somewhat supine.
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
I think the FTPA requires an election by May 2024.
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
Do we know yet what the ending of the FTPA means? Will Parliaments be able to last more than 5 years? It used to be the case, but wasn't that ended by the FTPA?
We don't know, but the idea is to return things as close as possible to the previous state of affairs.
i.e. maximum 5 years, but other than that at the whim of the PM.
The irony being that in the period that was supposed to be covered by the first fully "fixed term" Parliament of 2015-20 we had two General Elections anyway.
Absolutely.
The only real effect of repeal is that it gives Johnson the option of going beyond May 2024 if he wants to.
One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.
And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
They’re a fine party for a protest vote. I’d vote for them at a council level. Their politics are very local at that level. Nationally I wouldn’t give them a look in.
As I've posted before, I backed Reeves at 50/1 four weeks ago and 25/1 a week ago - and again today at 22/1 with Bet365.
The other market I've been considering in the Year of Next General Election. With the FTPA out of the way can anyone explain why 2024 is such a strong favourite over 2023?
The FTPA is a non-consideration considering the government can hold an election whenever they want, regardless of whether it is still in force.
I think the FTPA requires an election by May 2024.
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
Do we know yet what the ending of the FTPA means? Will Parliaments be able to last more than 5 years? It used to be the case, but wasn't that ended by the FTPA?
We don't know, but the idea is to return things as close as possible to the previous state of affairs.
i.e. maximum 5 years, but other than that at the whim of the PM.
The irony being that in the period that was supposed to be covered by the first fully "fixed term" Parliament of 2015-20 we had two General Elections anyway.
Absolutely.
The only real effect of repeal is that it gives Johnson the option of going beyond May 2024 if he wants to.
On thinking about it, that makes May 2024 seem more likely as it wouldn't be seen as hanging on until the last possible moment.
The media again are focusing on one individual who had had two jabs...which bit of vaccines aren't 100% don't they understand.
It is beyond moronic. Hancock was actually excellent on Sophy Ridge this morning trying to explain the maths in primary school language for her. Sadly she kept talking over him, at which stage I turned off the telly.
Media in the UK is all about the gotcha moment. Few journalists actually care about informing the public any longer. They just want politicians to have to row back on something they said earlier or try and get them to make a mistake live on air that they can put on social media.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
The questions from the public at the PM's press conference are almost invariably better than the journalists - mainly because they are seeking to elicit information, rather than score points.
Its a good job they don't let us PBers loose on Boris, Hancock and co :-)
Yep, there are enough shit questions from the media as things stand.
Why is the UK 's vaccine response so world beating? Is there any point even mentioning the UK Covid death rate within the next 5 years? Is the PM who is doing such sterling work grossly underpaid? Are the EU smelly poo pants? What's your favourite statue that has been vandalised by a Woke mob? etc
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
"Foreign worker dormitory" tells you all you need to know about the Singaporean government.
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
So we are literally down to South Korea as the only country to "beat" COVID without becoming a prison island, and even they are bouncing along at 500 cases a day. The difference is they appear to manage to keep it from ever going exponential.
Oh and Nigeria...perhaps...maybe....are they actually testing anybody?
I was asking this of a Nigerian colleague, and it does seem as if it has significantly faded away there.
Mind you, that is what we thought happened in India two months ago.
In Subsaharan Africa it is a very young population. Half are under 18, so may be a lot of mild/asymptomatic disease.
I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.
Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.
Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election
I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too
I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.
Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.
Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election
Yes but the Mayor of London can be an MP and mayor, whereas the Mayor of Greater Manchester cannot be an MP and mayor.
Comments
The messaging has been completely off with this. Why hasn't the government made it crystal clear that you must wait at least a few weeks for protection to build?
PB has known about this for months.
Wasn't one of Israel's problems that people were immediately going back to "normal" as soon as they had been jabbed?
@TimesRadio
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1393863425172910081
and by doing any mayor will have a very awkward decision to make - return to parliament by resigning from being a mayor early or continue as mayor.
Burnham I suspect would continue as mayor so there really is little chance of Burnham or co solving Labour's leadership issues.
Just have the jabber say, please be aware you gain no coverage at all for at least 3 weeks and then plaster the place with posters saying the same.
He said that of the 18 people in hospital in Bolton the majority were eligible but hadn't taken up the vaccine. (So that might be 10, and then there's 5 with one jab, and 1 with two jabs)
It's always annoyed me, but I haven't found him clever or amusing for a long while. Although, TBF, that was always unlikely!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5XPOFX6XHw
Fast forward to 42:14 and behold the joys of Labour conference
We have seen the exit door more than half open and no sane politician is going to try and close it again. An acceleration in vaccination seems to be on the cards and is a much better solution.
Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
My biggest beef against Starmer is that for the Leader of the Opposition he has done very little opposing of this Johnson Government.
If I was a Johnson shill, I would be content with the status quo, and rather than pushing the opinion that Starmer needs to go, I would be singing his praises in anticipation of the 2023/24 spanking Johnson will administer to him. It seems a strange dichotomy that Johnsonians want Starmer replaced by a "winner".
Repeal means that the full five years would be available if earlier conditions were unfavourable. That makes 2024 more likely simply because extends the timeframe.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
So I'm not betting on next Labour leader right now. As for Burnham, he's clearly starting to believe his own hype. That's not good in my book but many seem to like a big ego and a big mouth so who knows.
Most companies seeking staff 'need the finished product now'.
I'm not sure that having people work for the same firm for their lifetime is the best way forward.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
What I want is a serious and credible opposition that will force the government to raise its game and get rid of some of the complete numpties in their ranks. We get better government that way and people have a credible choice. In this respect Labour cannot lose sight of what an improvement SKS is from Corbyn. I am not personally seeing a blindingly obvious replacement at the moment, certainly not in Parliament and therefore eligible.
The pandemic has shown that our media class is as lacking as our political class. The two feed off each other's incompetence.
They can't even say it is driving audience figures, Sky News figures are through the floor. Adam Boulton regularly gets less 100k people watching his "flagship" show.
There are twats on the Youtube filming themselves talking about politics into an iPhone that get more views than that.
The issue is that almost everyone in the Labour Party is a "remainer" so that can't be an absolute bar forever.
confirms that the ideology of Critical Social Justice has decimated support for Labour.
If Labour is serious about rebuilding its “red wall”, it needs to detach itself from this illiberal, divisive and identity-obsessed movement.
https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1393875803474219008?s=20
Just because people think the Labour Party is "more likely" to support a specific policy, that doesn't mean anything in of itself.
i.e. maximum 5 years, but other than that at the whim of the PM.
One of the major concerns I've heard from working class leavers who previously voted Labour is they think Labour will take us back into the EU by the back door on day one if they win. No one in the Labour party is out there saying they won't or making pledges about not ever allowing free movement, or not ever joining the customs union etc...
People see that and come to the conclusion that the silence is there becuase they do intend to do these things on day one but because they know how badly it will play with voters they don't want to talk about it.
Singapore's health ministry on Sunday preliminarily confirmed 38 locally transmitted COVID-19 cases, the highest daily number since mid-September, as the city-state returned to the strictest curbs on gatherings since a coronavirus lockdown last year.
Singapore has reported more than 61,000 virus cases, with the bulk linked to outbreaks in foreign worker dormitories, and 31 deaths. While none of Sunday's new cases are in the dormitories, they are the highest number of local infections outside of the dormitories in a year.
The Asian trade and financial hub of 5.7 million people had until recently been reporting almost zero or single-digit daily infections locally for months. But cases have been increasing in recent weeks. The government, which is particularly concerned about a rise in unlinked cases, brought back strict restrictions on gatherings and public activities from Sunday.
https://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2021/05/16/singapore-reports-38-new-local-covid-19-cases-highest-in-months.html
A friend there reports its playing to all the government's authoritarian instincts - and they are taking their time with vaccine roll out - preferring closed borders to a strong vaccination drive.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
The only issue he has, as has been highlighted, is that he has no route back into the Commons without resigning as mayor. Perhaps he's happy to wait until after the next GE.
In fact it might be better for him to run as an MP at the next election, witness a probably loss, and then takeover as leader in the inevitable leadership contest, assuming he is still highly regarded.
Are any MPs in Greater Manchester looking to retire at the next GE? He could even run in Leigh, although that would be risky. However if he can't win Leigh, he can't be PM.
Free Movement, plus interchangeable qualifications, meant that countries with an over-production of pharmacists could export their 'surplus' to the UK, and companies keen to supply pharmacies as add-on's to supermarkets took advantage. They paid above the going rate in the likes of Spain and then Czechoslovakia, where young pharmacists were waiting for 'dead mans shoes' because the opening of new pharmacies was much more strictly controlled than in UK, but below the rate expected in UK, which depressed the rates and conditions available to newly qualified British pharmacists.
Now rates are, I understand, rising again.
I would vote that Labour are "more likely" to support ridiculous policies such as renaming breastfeeding as "chestfeeding" (note, this is on the same level as "YOU CANT SAY BA BA BLACKSHEEP ANYMORE hurr durr"), but that doesn't mean I actually think the Labour Party are going to legislate on that.
That's all I was saying.
The poll even excludes "don't knows".
Those here who call for hard Uk border policies because they’re wetting their beds about variants, would do well to pause and consider. Johnson has his faults but we are mighty lucky to have an outward looking and pro immigration PM at this current moment.
Imagine if Labour had from the start had proposed total closing of the border as they did in Australia and New Zealand? They would have been able to hammer the government from pillar to post over this. Of course they didn't and even now they will say things about the need to be tougher, but nothing concrete. They won't for instance go for total border closure, 100% hotel quarantine, rule out out foreign holidays this year.
Perhaps there's betting opportunities here. Burnham for next Labour leader would work if Keir stays in post until the next GE.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1393870989566611457?s=19
1. Reading lots of speculation about B1617.2, some informed, lots that isn’t. At present in parts of Scotland we have rise in cases associated with s-gene positivity. This is different from recent experience with high stable proportion s-gene target failure due to dominance B117
https://twitter.com/DrGregorSmith/status/1393875076395700224?s=20
Oh and Nigeria...perhaps...maybe....are they actually testing anybody?
The only real effect of repeal is that it gives Johnson the option of going beyond May 2024 if he wants to.
And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.
Interesting thread on the “proposed EU fiscal union by the back door..”
Why is the UK 's vaccine response so world beating?
Is there any point even mentioning the UK Covid death rate within the next 5 years?
Is the PM who is doing such sterling work grossly underpaid?
Are the EU smelly poo pants?
What's your favourite statue that has been vandalised by a Woke mob?
etc
Mind you, that is what we thought happened in India two months ago.
In Subsaharan Africa it is a very young population. Half are under 18, so may be a lot of mild/asymptomatic disease.
Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.
Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election