Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

David Cameron: Liberal Democrat Slayer – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2021 in General
imageDavid Cameron: Liberal Democrat Slayer – politicalbetting.com

For those of us who were Conservative activists in the 1990s and the early 2000s we were often in awe of the Liberal Democrat campaigning efforts. The Liberal Democrat activists would enter an area, secure a foothold on the local council, eventually take control of the council, and in plenty of these areas take the parliamentary seat shortly thereafter.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    First..... great piece,
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    back on topic - and even tweaking the electoral system (such as Wales, Scotland and the Metro mayors) has hardly helped them, the Greens a very real threat as well - perhaps more than labour(?)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2021
    Planning reform must be something that the Lib Dems can build support by opposing, certainly in the leafier parts of the shire counties?

    I mean, what are the Lib Dems for, if they can’t attract the NIMBYs?
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 2021
    I think the Greens will increasingly become the third party, or the main party for those disaffected by the Singaporean tory party.

    Although they occasionally come out with loopy ideas they're largely untainted. Unlike the LibDems who betrayed students.

    The latter is important to mention. An entire generation will never vote LibDem after what Clegg did to them over student fees.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 2021
    The vaccine success over the Indian variant shows that the Government got it right not panicking and pandering to the mad lockdown-shutdown scientists. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596

    There will be a case rise, not merely because of the Indian variant but because of unlocking. But the severity of the illness will be minimal because of our vaccination programme, although the imperative is to get your second jab.

    If they ride this one out and the vaccines beat the virus then this kind of 18 point opinion poll lead for the tories won't go away.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/22/voting-intention-con-46-lab-28-19-20-may

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2021
    LOL at all the song contest comments on the last thread. One of those quirky betting events where the result seems to be known well before it’s actually announced. Nice work if you can get it.

    Surely with all the singing and songwriting talent in the UK, the BBC can find an established artist to put together a singalong hit? Bonus points for long skirts that get torn off!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited May 2021
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    tlg86 said:
    Agreed - the endless soul-bearing which is a feature of so many ghastly 'news stories' of our day really has to stop. Harry is in the process of uttterly destroying his fragile reputation and maybe much more by this kind of indulgence and we do not need it from our politicians.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    On topic, I think the Tories' very smart use of social media is maybe what did for the LibDem model. It cut off the sort of under-the-radar whispering campaign to the voters that their mass leafletting was aimed at engendering. Instead of a generic piece of paper, people now have a message tailored to THEM in their inbox.

    Plus, the LibDems got found out as being rather shit at politics.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: shade wary of Leclerc-specific bets until the gearbox is definitively cleared up. If it's not, a penalty is still possible, late as it is.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2021

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: shade wary of Leclerc-specific bets until the gearbox is definitively cleared up. If it's not, a penalty is still possible, late as it is.

    Not just the gearbox either. Every part they’re replacing on the car needs to be identical to the damaged part, because of the Parc Fermé rules. If they don’t have identical parts, the car must start from the pit lane.

    As of 19:25 last night, he was still on pole. Official updates will appear at:
    https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14

    I’m looking to bet on Hamilton. He’s likely to be priced well, and I think he will save his tyres to go very long in the first stint while praying for a safety car.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: browsing the market but half the stuff on Ladbrokes is missing... not sure why (and I have seen it's split between race and race specials, but even so).
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Just seen the news about @JohnO on the previous thread. I add my very best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Sandpit, brave. He and Bottas have the same odds of 11. I'd prefer the Finn in this situation. You're right that the safety kid approach may be Hamilton's best bet.

    Cheers for the link.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2021

    Mr. Sandpit, brave. He and Bottas have the same odds of 11. I'd prefer the Finn in this situation. You're right that the safety kid approach may be Hamilton's best bet.

    Cheers for the link.

    Ha, only Lewis could be priced so short, having had a rubbish weekend so far, and starting 7th at a track where overtaking is almost impossible. Not for me at that price, although Bottas could be value.

    I think the RB and Merc cars have better race pace than Ferrari, so if Leclerc gets away first there could be a long train behind him.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Sandpit, aye, considered Bottas but he has mostly disappointed this year.

    Betting Post

    F1: heroically backed, half a stake each, more than 16.5 classified finishers at 2.1 and more than 17.5 classified finishers at 2.75.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/05/monaco-pre-race-2021.html
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    Sandpit said:

    Planning reform must be something that the Lib Dems can build support by opposing, certainly in the leafier parts of the shire counties?

    I mean, what are the Lib Dems for, if they can’t attract the NIMBYs?

    The Green Party are beating them to iit. There’s a real opportunity here for the greens. But they need to be less like XRs political,wing.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,349
    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    If they want to be a part of a progressive alliance then they should make a formal agreement, pact, agenda, manufesto and shadow cabinet.
    Otherwise they will be a sad rabble of single interest groups without coherence.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AnneJGP said:

    Just seen the news about @JohnO on the previous thread. I add my very best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery.

    Good morning, everyone.

    I 100% concur
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,667
    tlg86 said:

    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.

    Why do you think that?

    It is the Conservative-Labour-Green Party who are the profligate ones.

    The Liberal Democrats normally have their manifesto thoroughly examined by some economic experts before each general election.

    When the present Conservative bubble finally bursts, people will be looking for responsible government once again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    ClippP said:

    tlg86 said:

    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.

    Why do you think that?

    It is the Conservative-Labour-Green Party who are the profligate ones.

    The Liberal Democrats normally have their manifesto thoroughly examined by some economic experts before each general election.

    When the present Conservative bubble finally bursts, people will be looking for responsible government once again.
    Nobody wants a sensible party any more.

    "Bollocks to Brexit" may have been a bit juvenile as a slogan, but it was the best LD performance in terms of popular vote in 3 General elections.

    The reason there are 3 opposition parties rather than one is that they stand for different things. The LD vote in 2019 was hard core Remainerism, the Green vote now a rejection of Starmerism etc.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,459
    Not sure how much it is to do with Cameron, equally important factors are a couple of poor leaders in Farron and Swinson followed by the current anonymous one and their failure to stand up for and explain coalition government.

    As a floating voter it is extremely off putting when party members say the reason for the party is an ideas farm for Labour and the Tories to copy rather than an aspiration for power, even shared power.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    philiph said:

    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    If they want to be a part of a progressive alliance then they should make a formal agreement, pact, agenda, manufesto and shadow cabinet.
    Otherwise they will be a sad rabble of single interest groups without coherence.
    Which is pretty much where they are at the moment. An informal agreement won’t work. Look how new labour screwed the Lib Dem’s over in 97 when they didn’t need them and there are plenty in labour resistant to a formal agreement too.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    edited May 2021
    The LDs do have a chance to establish new heartlands round South-West London and out into the west. It was in fact Corbyn that prevented them from doing better here in 2019, by scaring off potential Con-LD switchers. A win in C&A, while a long shot, would really help.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    tlg86 said:

    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.

    It would help if they could put a £ on legalisation of drugs. It should raise tax revenue, and it should decrease costs for legal issues, prisons etc. Will increase costs on NHS, but hopefully quality control might reduce strengths etc.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,459
    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    It's almost a necessity under FPTP. If all the left wing voters could unify around one party and leader then it could do a lot better. Problem is that leader would probably have to have politics a lot closer to the right of labour than Corbyn if it were to attract the swing voters. Swing voters are more important than attracting the crazies at the extremes as they are worth two votes. One more for you one less for your opponent.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    The Guardian repeatedly maintained that ‘herd immunity’ was initially part of the government’s planned response to Covid-19, despite the categorical and on the record denials from Hancock and Downing St spokespeople.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/22/dominic-cummings-claims-ministers-backed-herd-immunity-against-covid?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Taz said:

    philiph said:

    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    If they want to be a part of a progressive alliance then they should make a formal agreement, pact, agenda, manufesto and shadow cabinet.
    Otherwise they will be a sad rabble of single interest groups without coherence.
    Which is pretty much where they are at the moment. An informal agreement won’t work. Look how new labour screwed the Lib Dem’s over in 97 when they didn’t need them and there are plenty in labour resistant to a formal agreement too.
    The "progressive alliance" is a dead duck, at least for the foreseeable future. It would require Labour to concede that it can never win a general election under FPTP again, and agree to electoral reform as part of a coalition.

    You can see that happening, perhaps, if the Conservatives succeed in reducing Labour to 150 seats and nailing it up inside the urban cores, and if the Lib Dems manage a substantial revival in the South - but we're a long way from that point at the moment.

    Labour remains, for the time being, the overwhelmingly dominant centre-left party in England and Wales. Unless or until that changes, they'll be all in favour of digging in and waiting for the pendulum to swing back towards them, as has happened at regular intervals since the War.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    I went back through some of my pieces to remind myself the switch from briefing out herd immunity as a strategy to suppression of the virus. This was from March 20 2020 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1396364841590341633/photo/1
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
    Yet studies showed that most of the virus cases were imported from Spain.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    am pretty sure most journalists knew herd immunity was the strategy because Patrick Vallance pretty much said it on TV in March 2020
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1396364948520022016

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1396207447547711488
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    David Cameron was almost ideally suited to attracting soft Lib Dems to the Conservatives.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    It's almost a necessity under FPTP. If all the left wing voters could unify around one party and leader then it could do a lot better. Problem is that leader would probably have to have politics a lot closer to the right of labour than Corbyn if it were to attract the swing voters. Swing voters are more important than attracting the crazies at the extremes as they are worth two votes. One more for you one less for your opponent.
    Labour is too far left for the swing voters. The Lib Dems are hamstrung by association with left-wing Labour. If Labour moderates, it insults the crazies and bleeds votes to the Greens. They all suck the life out of each other.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Taz said:

    philiph said:

    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    If they want to be a part of a progressive alliance then they should make a formal agreement, pact, agenda, manufesto and shadow cabinet.
    Otherwise they will be a sad rabble of single interest groups without coherence.
    Which is pretty much where they are at the moment. An informal agreement won’t work. Look how new labour screwed the Lib Dem’s over in 97 when they didn’t need them and there are plenty in labour resistant to a formal agreement too.
    The "progressive alliance" is a dead duck, at least for the foreseeable future. It would require Labour to concede that it can never win a general election under FPTP again, and agree to electoral reform as part of a coalition.

    You can see that happening, perhaps, if the Conservatives succeed in reducing Labour to 150 seats and nailing it up inside the urban cores, and if the Lib Dems manage a substantial revival in the South - but we're a long way from that point at the moment.

    Labour remains, for the time being, the overwhelmingly dominant centre-left party in England and Wales. Unless or until that changes, they'll be all in favour of digging in and waiting for the pendulum to swing back towards them, as has happened at regular intervals since the War.
    Or, to put it another way, Labour remains the block on any sort of sensible successful non-Tory politics in this country.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,459

    The LDs do have a chance to establish new heartlands round South-West London and out into the west. It was in fact Corbyn that prevented them from doing better here in 2019, by scaring off potential Con-LD switchers. A win in C&A, while a long shot, would really help.

    If working from home stays a thing, there will be a lot of Londoners moving out to the London commuter towns. The "naicer" ones are already in play but that could certainly spread if we see an exodus from London suburbs to the commuter belt.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    tlg86 said:
    Did he say " I am a quiet sort of man..". that really wouldn't be the end....
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    Totally untrustworthy man who lied about breaking lockdown pfffft...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
    It's amazing that such a self-proclaimed expert on Covid, how it spread, and the right way to combat it, managed to contract Covid himself.

    Re: Italy - i distinctly recall "no10 briefings" (AKA Cummings) to newspapers in early/mid March 2020 arguing that Italy had it bad for all sorts of reasons that simply didn't apply to the UK.

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288

    Taz said:

    philiph said:

    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    If they want to be a part of a progressive alliance then they should make a formal agreement, pact, agenda, manufesto and shadow cabinet.
    Otherwise they will be a sad rabble of single interest groups without coherence.
    Which is pretty much where they are at the moment. An informal agreement won’t work. Look how new labour screwed the Lib Dem’s over in 97 when they didn’t need them and there are plenty in labour resistant to a formal agreement too.
    The "progressive alliance" is a dead duck, at least for the foreseeable future. It would require Labour to concede that it can never win a general election under FPTP again, and agree to electoral reform as part of a coalition.

    You can see that happening, perhaps, if the Conservatives succeed in reducing Labour to 150 seats and nailing it up inside the urban cores, and if the Lib Dems manage a substantial revival in the South - but we're a long way from that point at the moment.

    Labour remains, for the time being, the overwhelmingly dominant centre-left party in England and Wales. Unless or until that changes, they'll be all in favour of digging in and waiting for the pendulum to swing back towards them, as has happened at regular intervals since the War.
    I think you mean irregular intervals.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Britain’s chief scientific adviser stoked controversy on Friday when he said that about 40m people in the UK could need to catch the coronavirus to build up “herd immunity” and prevent the disease coming back in the future.

    Defending Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision not to follow other European countries by closing schools and banning mass gatherings, Patrick Vallance said it was the government’s aim to “reduce the peak of the epidemic, pull it down and broaden it” while protecting the elderly and vulnerable.

    But Sir Patrick told Sky News that experts estimated that about 60 per cent of the UK’s 66m population would have to contract coronavirus in order for society to build up immunity.

    “Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term,” he said. “About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”

    In another interview with the BBC, Sir Patrick said: “If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.”

    He added: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”


    https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    I went back over my analysis pieces/reports from March 2020. There was a clear & dramatic switch from herd immunity to suppression of the virus in mid March. Wrote this after March 11 briefing when Whitty warned of, at worst, up to half million deaths
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-populist-pm-takes-non-populist-approach-when-it-comes-to-pandemics-11956657 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1396367422689628160/photo/1
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
    Yet studies showed that most of the virus cases were imported from Spain.
    Wasn't that for the second wave? I'm pretty sure the first wave was imported from Italy, China and Pakistan.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited May 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Hmm, I think the bigger failure from the Lib Dems was to disown their achievements in government and run as an opposition party against their own record.

    It made them look ridiculous. Every time they popped up with some insane uttering about how shot the government was and how they would have done it better if they were the government it was just really weird.

    Yes, as a general rule, Governments have a significant incumbency advantage in elections (better the devil you know). The problem for the LibDems of course was that they were acutely aware how many of their votes in 2010 were a repository of "pox on both your houses" (anti-Lab/anti-Con) that they were bound to lose as a result of certain things that happened in the coalition. Where they then probably made a big mistake with a difficult hand was trying to win those back - instead of pushing on for new pro-Coalition voters that they could have attracted in traditional Lib/Con seats.

    Of course there was one MP who held their seat against a lot of the odds - Nick Clegg - who did so on the back of massive tactical voting from Con voters.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Unusually early and off topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    There is still an internationalist-minded cohort of Tory MPs who don’t like what these [aid] cuts say about the values of their party and who will rebel if they get the opportunity. In a recent Commons debate, the Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell invited the chancellor to think about the “very savage” damage being done to both “the poorest people in the world” and “Britain’s reputation”.

    It would take 44 Conservative MPs combining with the opposition parties to defeat the government. Remarks one of the Tory dissenters: “We’ve probably got that number and the government knows we’ve probably got that number, which is why they are running shy of a vote.”

    Ministers are swerving a reckoning in parliament by arguing that they are not changing the target, but choosing to miss it for an unspecified amount of time, a shameless exercise in semantics. The case that the government is behaving unlawfully could be taken to court, but it would likely take at least a year to secure a verdict. The Tory rebels are hoping to find a piece of legislation to which they can attach an amendment designed to force a government retreat. “We are lying in wait for an amendment,” says one of them.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Britain’s chief scientific adviser stoked controversy on Friday when he said that about 40m people in the UK could need to catch the coronavirus to build up “herd immunity” and prevent the disease coming back in the future.

    Defending Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision not to follow other European countries by closing schools and banning mass gatherings, Patrick Vallance said it was the government’s aim to “reduce the peak of the epidemic, pull it down and broaden it” while protecting the elderly and vulnerable.

    But Sir Patrick told Sky News that experts estimated that about 60 per cent of the UK’s 66m population would have to contract coronavirus in order for society to build up immunity.

    “Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term,” he said. “About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”

    In another interview with the BBC, Sir Patrick said: “If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.”

    He added: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”


    https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

    I suspect we may find out whether that works when NZ open their doors.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Of course it was. Everyone can still remember the line “flatten the curve”.
    Which meant to keep the rate of people who got ill low enough to avoid overwhelming the NHS while the virus progressed through the population.
    You still get people asking “when did that change?”
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,459
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
    Yet studies showed that most of the virus cases were imported from Spain.
    Wasn't that for the second wave? I'm pretty sure the first wave was imported from Italy, China and Pakistan.
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/212093/covid-19-transmission-chains-uk-traced-back/

    "During this time the highest number of transmission chains were introduced from Spain (33%), France (29%), and then Italy (12%) – with China accounting for only 0.4% of imports."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Scott_xP said:

    Britain’s chief scientific adviser stoked controversy on Friday when he said that about 40m people in the UK could need to catch the coronavirus to build up “herd immunity” and prevent the disease coming back in the future.

    Defending Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision not to follow other European countries by closing schools and banning mass gatherings, Patrick Vallance said it was the government’s aim to “reduce the peak of the epidemic, pull it down and broaden it” while protecting the elderly and vulnerable.

    But Sir Patrick told Sky News that experts estimated that about 60 per cent of the UK’s 66m population would have to contract coronavirus in order for society to build up immunity.

    “Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term,” he said. “About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”

    In another interview with the BBC, Sir Patrick said: “If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.”

    He added: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”


    https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

    Although good news if he’s right, because the vaccines would give us about that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited May 2021
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
    Yet studies showed that most of the virus cases were imported from Spain.
    Wasn't that for the second wave? I'm pretty sure the first wave was imported from Italy, China and Pakistan.
    Just 0.1% of the 1,300-odd first wave sources were imported from China.

    Spain, Italy and France was primarily where our first wave came from.

    Then Belgium, Netherland, Ireland, Switzerland, US.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52993734


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Of course it was. Everyone can still remember the line “flatten the curve”.
    Which meant to keep the rate of people who got ill low enough to avoid overwhelming the NHS while the virus progressed through the population.
    You still get people asking “when did that change?”
    Yes, what they unveiled at that first press conference was a seemingly ‘clever’ strategy aimed at achieving herd immunity. I always remember Whitty answering a question with the giveaway words “we actually want more people to catch the virus”.

    What they hadn’t factored in was the critical load on ICUs, which would have been overwhelmed, with people left to die untreated. For some reason what was going on in Bergamo at that very moment was an insufficient clue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    MaxPB said:

    Hmm, I think the bigger failure from the Lib Dems was to disown their achievements in government and run as an opposition party against their own record.

    It made them look ridiculous. Every time they popped up with some insane uttering about how shit the government was and how they would have done it better if they were the government it was just really weird.

    The LibDems were great when they were all about chasing cars.

    Not so great when they caught the car. And then got reversed over by the car....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hmm, I think the bigger failure from the Lib Dems was to disown their achievements in government and run as an opposition party against their own record.

    It made them look ridiculous. Every time they popped up with some insane uttering about how shot the government was and how they would have done it better if they were the government it was just really weird.

    Yes, as a general rule, Governments have a significant incumbency advantage in elections (better the devil you know). The problem for the LibDems of course was that they were acutely aware how many of their votes in 2010 were a repository of "pox on both your houses" (anti-Lab/anti-Con) that they were bound to lose as a result of certain things that happened in the coalition. Where they then probably made a big mistake with a difficult hand was trying to win those back - instead of pushing on for new pro-Coalition voters that they could have attracted in traditional Lib/Con seats.

    Of course there was one MP who held their seat against a lot of the odds - Nick Clegg - who did so on the back of massive tactical voting from Con voters.
    There is some evidence that a lot of voters who liked the coalition thought that voting Tory was the best way of keeping it going. Understanding of electoral mechanics isn’t all that common, away from this site!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dominic Cummings has launched an extraordinary new attempt to destroy the government’s credibility over Covid-19, claiming that ministers had backed a policy of “herd immunity” then lied about having done so.

    In an astonishing series of tweets on Saturday just days before he is due to appear before a Commons inquiry, the prime minister’s former adviser in effect accused the health secretary, Matt Hancock, of lying about the “herd immunity” plan and talking “bullshit” when he denied it to the media.

    Cummings also claimed that if “competent” people had been in charge of Covid strategy in its early stages, then it may have been possible to avoid the first lockdown, and certainly the second and third would not have been needed.

    The first bit we already know from public interviews at the time. For at least 2 days, maybe 3 or 4 I can't remember exactly, herd immunity was clearly the plan. I don't actually mind the govt lying about that too much, it was a white lie to move on and get the country behind the new plan.

    The second bit, well wasn't Cummings as the link between SAGE and the cabinet/PM one of the people in charge. If he failed to convince from that role perhaps he should consider how competent he really is himself.

    Did we make mistakes? Yes
    Was the PM suited to this type of crisis? No
    Could we really have avoided any lockdown? Only with extreme good luck
    Once we decided not to quarantine arrivals from Italy, in the same way we had quarantined arrivals from China, it was pretty much inevitable we would end up where we did in the first phase.
    Yet studies showed that most of the virus cases were imported from Spain.
    Wasn't that for the second wave? I'm pretty sure the first wave was imported from Italy, China and Pakistan.
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/212093/covid-19-transmission-chains-uk-traced-back/

    "During this time the highest number of transmission chains were introduced from Spain (33%), France (29%), and then Italy (12%) – with China accounting for only 0.4% of imports."
    Fair enough! Just goes to show how important proper and universal quarantine measure were and still are.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    The LDs do have a chance to establish new heartlands round South-West London and out into the west. It was in fact Corbyn that prevented them from doing better here in 2019, by scaring off potential Con-LD switchers. A win in C&A, while a long shot, would really help.

    If working from home stays a thing, there will be a lot of Londoners moving out to the London commuter towns. The "naicer" ones are already in play but that could certainly spread if we see an exodus from London suburbs to the commuter belt.
    Certainly possible as a medium-term trend, and you can see how the LDs could indeed profit heavily in leafy, wealthy areas in Hampshire, Surrey, West Sussex and out along the M4 corridor as far as Gloucs. Given the need to produce a compromise platform capable of attracting high-income refugees from London, whilst peeling off some of the oldies from the Conservatives, they could run on a platform something like this:

    *No new build houses spoiling your view
    *Pension triple lock (which we created, remember?) to continue forever
    *Refugees welcome! (But not here, somewhere like Haringey or Rochdale where they'll blend in and you won't have to look at or smell them - out of sight is out of mind, after all)
    *No new build houses, which would attract inappropriate poor people to the area
    *Lovely clean, green electricity (from solar farms and windmills, neither of which will be built in nice places like this)
    *No tax rises for nice middle class people. We've worked out that we can extract £237bn per year from banks, corporations, but mostly out of Amazon
    *Trans women are women (though if you don't believe that we'll just tut disapprovingly, rather than fire-bombing your house like those nasty lefties)
    *NO NEW BUILD HOUSES, EVER!!!

    It could be a thing. The Lib Dems have been moribund for the last decade, so they've not much left to lose by trying.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    I think the Greens will increasingly become the third party, or the main party for those disaffected by the Singaporean tory party.

    Although they occasionally come out with loopy ideas they're largely untainted. Unlike the LibDems who betrayed students.

    The latter is important to mention. An entire generation will never vote LibDem after what Clegg did to them over student fees.

    Never is a long time... Correct though to highlight the great Clegg betrayal. Even as his team and all the candidates and activists toured the country posing with their tuition fees pledge Clegg has already decided it was unaffordable and would be h=the first thing to go in negotiations.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
    No.

    But anything he says in front of the committee will be a lie. Because that’s how he operates. It helps that he’s capable of deluding himself into believing his lies, so to the uninitiated he sounds convincing.

    That doesn’t mean others will be telling the truth, merely that his evidence will be totally valueless in establishing what really happened.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    I think the Greens will increasingly become the third party, or the main party for those disaffected by the Singaporean tory party.

    Although they occasionally come out with loopy ideas they're largely untainted. Unlike the LibDems who betrayed students.

    The latter is important to mention. An entire generation will never vote LibDem after what Clegg did to them over student fees.

    Never is a long time... Correct though to highlight the great Clegg betrayal. Even as his team and all the candidates and activists toured the country posing with their tuition fees pledge Clegg has already decided it was unaffordable and would be h=the first thing to go in negotiations.
    It was such an obvious mistake, and one that was obvious to me at the time. I shouted up the party hierarchy once it became public, but of course by then it was too late even if anyone was listening, which they weren’t. Clegg didn’t spot that Cammo had almost entirely protected pensioners, including the wealthy ones, from the effects of austerity, at far greater long term cost.

    Often forgotten is that one of the LibDem slogans for fighting the 2010 GE was “no more broken promises”.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,099

    tlg86 said:

    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.

    It would help if they could put a £ on legalisation of drugs. It should raise tax revenue, and it should decrease costs for legal issues, prisons etc. Will increase costs on NHS, but hopefully quality control might reduce strengths etc.
    I am in favour of taxing it but not sure the money raised directly is the big deal. Back of the envelope time.

    About 2.5m cannabis users spending about £500 per year spend £1.25bn.
    Govt take half in tax raises just over £600m
    Add in other drugs, which would be more controversial perhaps up to £1bn govt revenue.

    A quick google says Holland brings in e400-600m from drugs tax so I am probably too low, if in the right order of magnitude although there is obviously a lot of drugs tourism to Amsterdam. Perhaps £2bn for the UK.

    The impact in improved efficiency on policing and the justice system should be worth several times the tax revenue, as well as improving people's lives by reducing crime.
    Don't forget revenue from the growing side, which I think is not legal in the Netherlands.

    Canada is the test for that.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
    If truth is a comb, then this is the epitome of a fight for it between two bald men.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
    No.

    But anything he says in front of the committee will be a lie. Because that’s how he operates. It helps that he’s capable of deluding himself into believing his lies, so to the uninitiated he sounds convincing.

    That doesn’t mean others will be telling the truth, merely that his evidence will be totally valueless in establishing what really happened.
    Therefore it will hang on his proof rather than his allegations.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
    If truth is a comb, then this is the epitome of a fight for it between two bald men.
    Are you sure? The comb is in that analogy because it is of no value or utility to the combatants. If that’s your argument about truth in politics, we have reached a sorry point.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    philiph said:

    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LDs have emerged as a centre left party, in place of the party that could be all things to all people. The Remain thing consolidates this.

    Therefore they have lost most centre right and/or Brexity interest - they are not on the possibles list.

    And they have joined the internal fight for votes within a split centre left. Yesterdays poll gave Lab 28, G/LD 16. An OK result (44%) if it is all for one party; 1983 territory if split 3 ways.

    Reorganisation of centre left politics is essential.

    What does that actually mean. Lots of talk of so called progressive alliances but his really seems to be about getting a labour minority govt which would then change the electoral system. If the parties really all have the same vision and politics, or largely the same, they should merge.
    If they want to be a part of a progressive alliance then they should make a formal agreement, pact, agenda, manufesto and shadow cabinet.
    Otherwise they will be a sad rabble of single interest groups without coherence.
    Labour won't do deals with anyone - that has been tried already. Its the usual AND party problem, no deals with flinching cowards and sneering traitors.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
    No.

    But anything he says in front of the committee will be a lie. Because that’s how he operates. It helps that he’s capable of deluding himself into believing his lies, so to the uninitiated he sounds convincing.

    That doesn’t mean others will be telling the truth, merely that his evidence will be totally valueless in establishing what really happened.
    Therefore it will hang on his proof rather than his allegations.
    Any ‘proof’ he has is likely to be a forgery. Again, that is how he operates. He genuinely believes he’s always right and therefore the evidence must match what he says.

    So unless it can be confirmed internally, it’s still worthless.

    Funny, possibly, but worthless.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    But not the only one.
    It doesn't matter who else is a fecking liar. All politicians are liars, some more brazen than others. Cummimgs is.. well I would rather not think about that man. There is something if the night about him and he is completely untrustworthy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    IanB2 said:

    I think the Greens will increasingly become the third party, or the main party for those disaffected by the Singaporean tory party.

    Although they occasionally come out with loopy ideas they're largely untainted. Unlike the LibDems who betrayed students.

    The latter is important to mention. An entire generation will never vote LibDem after what Clegg did to them over student fees.

    Never is a long time... Correct though to highlight the great Clegg betrayal. Even as his team and all the candidates and activists toured the country posing with their tuition fees pledge Clegg has already decided it was unaffordable and would be h=the first thing to go in negotiations.
    It was such an obvious mistake, and one that was obvious to me at the time. I shouted up the party hierarchy once it became public, but of course by then it was too late even if anyone was listening, which they weren’t. Clegg didn’t spot that Cammo had almost entirely protected pensioners, including the wealthy ones, from the effects of austerity, at far greater long term cost.

    Often forgotten is that one of the LibDem slogans for fighting the 2010 GE was “no more broken promises”.
    It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it. The LDs made their tuition fees pledge the centrepiece of their manifesto, and they spent the year before the election visiting every university town in the country signing pledges not to raise tuition fees. It really wouldn’t have been difficult for them to have agreed to vote against it in the negotiations, but instead it was their own minister who introduced the bill in the first place!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    MaxPB said:

    Hmm, I think the bigger failure from the Lib Dems was to disown their achievements in government and run as an opposition party against their own record.

    It made them look ridiculous. Every time they popped up with some insane uttering about how shit the government was and how they would have done it better if they were the government it was just really weird.

    Agreed. I wasn't a LibDem at the time, and despite the worst egregious bills they supported (Lansley's NHS reforms...) there was a *significant* amount of good policy in that government which so often was LD driven. Disowning it because Clegg was a tosser is so silly.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557
    edited May 2021
    This article is unconvincing or simply wrong on a number of levels.

    First, as the chart on this page about 3/4 of the way down shows:

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/

    The Lib Dems held steady in terms of councillors when Cameron was elected - between 2006 and 2010, Conservative gains came from Labour. They only started to collapse after they entered government in 2010.

    Second, as the article notes, the Lib Dems haven't really recovered since Cameron left. If he were the explanation, you'd expect some uptick in 2016 or 2017. TMay was very different from David Cameron, but they failed to make any headway against her.

    Third, it is national elections that count, not local ones, in this country, and the Lib Dem performance in 2010 was the same as in 2005 - why would that be if Cameron were so toxic to the Lib Dems?

    Fourth, all the evidence shows that Cameron was a poor performer electorally. He couldn't win a majority against Gordon Brown after the latter had completely screwed up the UK economy and was for a while the least popular PM in history.

    David Cameron didn't slay the Lib Dems, or even damage them much. It was their own behaviour in the 2010-5 government that has doomed them to insignificance.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited May 2021
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think the Greens will increasingly become the third party, or the main party for those disaffected by the Singaporean tory party.

    Although they occasionally come out with loopy ideas they're largely untainted. Unlike the LibDems who betrayed students.

    The latter is important to mention. An entire generation will never vote LibDem after what Clegg did to them over student fees.

    Never is a long time... Correct though to highlight the great Clegg betrayal. Even as his team and all the candidates and activists toured the country posing with their tuition fees pledge Clegg has already decided it was unaffordable and would be h=the first thing to go in negotiations.
    It was such an obvious mistake, and one that was obvious to me at the time. I shouted up the party hierarchy once it became public, but of course by then it was too late even if anyone was listening, which they weren’t. Clegg didn’t spot that Cammo had almost entirely protected pensioners, including the wealthy ones, from the effects of austerity, at far greater long term cost.

    Often forgotten is that one of the LibDem slogans for fighting the 2010 GE was “no more broken promises”.
    It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it. The LDs made their tuition fees pledge the centrepiece of their manifesto, and they spent the year before the election visiting every university town in the country signing pledges not to raise tuition fees. It really wouldn’t have been difficult for them to have agreed to vote against it in the negotiations, but instead it was their own minister who introduced the bill in the first place!
    Particularly since it was a very, very bad model that was proposed.

    It’s no coincidence that it was Lord Browne, a self-confessed perjurer, thief and sex pest,* who came up with it after talking solely to Vice Chancellors.

    Those in itself should have been good reasons to reject it, of course.

    *I am still stunned that even the infamous David Eady let him get away with that.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    The dangerous thing that may well come out of this pandemic is the conclusion that potential new virus's should result in an automatic rush for worst case scenarios and on the hoof measures and extreme economic and public health measures put in place commensurate with that.

    The priority should be investing heavily in early warning systems and an infrastructure that manages to narrow risk scenarios as potential threats are identified as soon as possible - but we shouldn't need to be in a position where we are spending money on the basis that a once in a hundred years scenario will happen every other year.

    The danger that could arise is that people could lose sight of the reality that new virus's can come in many forms - many won't even get off the ground and reach epidemic status, let alone pandemic - and also at various levels of danger to public health. Because people are now becoming obsessed by the potential for (implicitly dangerous) "virus mutations" even the most mild of virus may in future be treated with extreme.

    When investigating the Government approach to Covid and learning lessons for the future, it would be well to consider how having learned those lessons they would be applied in practice to, say, the 2010 Swine flu pandemic.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,593
    MaxPB said:

    Hmm, I think the bigger failure from the Lib Dems was to disown their achievements in government and run as an opposition party against their own record.

    It made them look ridiculous. Every time they popped up with some insane uttering about how shit the government was and how they would have done it better if they were the government it was just really weird.

    When the LDs USP is not being the Conservative Party, joining in coalition with...the Conservatives (to satisfy Nick Clegg's personal aggrandisement requirements) was always going to end in tears.

    Then in Coalition, if a policy was popular the Conservatives accepted the credit, and if it was upopular blamed the LDs. All the while senior LDs like Clegg didn't realise this, because they were busy parading the streets and TV studios in their "new clothes" of government, and were far too important to notice.

    So on your point, why should the LDs focus on the positives of coalition when it is wholly of benefit to the Conservatives? Why vote orange Tory when one can vote for the real thing?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    There is a difference between Gove-Cummings and Johnson, though.

    Johnson does just make stuff up. Generally on the basis of "what does my current audience want to hear?"

    G-C usually have some sort of factual basis, and lots of footnotes. It's just that their sources get twisted out of all recognition in support of the conclusion they've already reached.

    Though choosing between the approaches is like choosing which painful disease you want to get.

    (On the substantive point, DC is going to need more than this to significantly harm BoJo.)
  • MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.

    It would help if they could put a £ on legalisation of drugs. It should raise tax revenue, and it should decrease costs for legal issues, prisons etc. Will increase costs on NHS, but hopefully quality control might reduce strengths etc.
    I am in favour of taxing it but not sure the money raised directly is the big deal. Back of the envelope time.

    About 2.5m cannabis users spending about £500 per year spend £1.25bn.
    Govt take half in tax raises just over £600m
    Add in other drugs, which would be more controversial perhaps up to £1bn govt revenue.

    A quick google says Holland brings in e400-600m from drugs tax so I am probably too low, if in the right order of magnitude although there is obviously a lot of drugs tourism to Amsterdam. Perhaps £2bn for the UK.

    The impact in improved efficiency on policing and the justice system should be worth several times the tax revenue, as well as improving people's lives by reducing crime.
    Don't forget revenue from the growing side, which I think is not legal in the Netherlands.

    Canada is the test for that.
    The value, both in monetary and social terms, is in removing the criminal element from the supply. Probably 75% of major crime in this country is related to the drugs trade. Whether it is smackheads burgling or robbing shops to pay or kids being lured to join gangs as street dealers.
    It will also massively ease the pressure on the prison service.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    There is a difference between Gove-Cummings and Johnson, though.

    Johnson does just make stuff up. Generally on the basis of "what does my current audience want to hear?"

    G-C usually have some sort of factual basis, and lots of footnotes. It's just that their sources get twisted out of all recognition in support of the conclusion they've already reached.

    Though choosing between the approaches is like choosing which painful disease you want to get.

    (On the substantive point, DC is going to need more than this to significantly harm BoJo.)
    David Irving has ‘some sort of factual basis, and a lot of footnotes.’ Doesn’t mean that his oeuvre isn’t a wholesale forgery.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Fishing said:

    This article is unconvincing or simply wrong on a number of levels.

    First, as the chart on this page about 3/4 of the way down shows:

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/

    The Lib Dems held steady in terms of councillors when Cameron was elected - between 2006 and 2010, Conservative gains came from Labour. They only started to collapse after they entered government in 2010.

    Second, as the article notes, the Lib Dems haven't really recovered since Cameron left. If he were the explanation, you'd expect some uptick in 2016 or 2017. TMay was very different from David Cameron, but they failed to make any headway against her.

    Third, it is national elections that count, not local ones, in this country, and the Lib Dem performance in 2010 was the same as in 2005 - why would that be if Cameron were so toxic to the Lib Dems?

    Fourth, all the evidence shows that Cameron was a poor performer electorally. He couldn't win a majority against Gordon Brown after the latter had completely screwed up the UK economy and was for a while the least popular PM in history.

    David Cameron didn't slay the Lib Dems, or even damage them much. It was their own behaviour in the 2010-5 government that has doomed them to insignificance.

    Good points, with the caveat that there really aren’t any success stories of junior partners not being punished in coalition. Therefore the question isn’t so much what mistakes did the LibDems make (which of course they did) but whether there was anything they could have done to buck a very well established trend?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,944
    IanB2 said:

    Unusually early and off topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    There is still an internationalist-minded cohort of Tory MPs who don’t like what these [aid] cuts say about the values of their party and who will rebel if they get the opportunity. In a recent Commons debate, the Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell invited the chancellor to think about the “very savage” damage being done to both “the poorest people in the world” and “Britain’s reputation”.

    It would take 44 Conservative MPs combining with the opposition parties to defeat the government. Remarks one of the Tory dissenters: “We’ve probably got that number and the government knows we’ve probably got that number, which is why they are running shy of a vote.”

    Ministers are swerving a reckoning in parliament by arguing that they are not changing the target, but choosing to miss it for an unspecified amount of time, a shameless exercise in semantics. The case that the government is behaving unlawfully could be taken to court, but it would likely take at least a year to secure a verdict. The Tory rebels are hoping to find a piece of legislation to which they can attach an amendment designed to force a government retreat. “We are lying in wait for an amendment,” says one of them.

    Cutting aid is one thing. Cutting aid while complaining about China buying influence is another. It is the same in decades gone by as cutting the BBC World Service. If soft power is a game that government wants to play then it needs to will the means as well as the end. If it saves any lives, that's a bonus.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    Lol.
    Finland needs to get back to the hard rocking principles of Corb..er..Lordi.

    https://twitter.com/tneenan/status/1396216541989986306?s=21
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,593
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    There is a difference between Gove-Cummings and Johnson, though.

    Johnson does just make stuff up. Generally on the basis of "what does my current audience want to hear?"

    G-C usually have some sort of factual basis, and lots of footnotes. It's just that their sources get twisted out of all recognition in support of the conclusion they've already reached.

    Though choosing between the approaches is like choosing which painful disease you want to get.

    (On the substantive point, DC is going to need more than this to significantly harm BoJo.)
    David Irving has ‘some sort of factual basis, and a lot of footnotes.’ Doesn’t mean that his oeuvre isn’t a wholesale forgery.
    Does that mean you favour the validity of Johnson's story over that of spurned bunny-boiler Cummings?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    Very good piece. The good news for the Lib Dem’s is that they still have pockets of strength. The bad news, I think, is that the gap in the market is for a Cameron/Clegg/Osborne/Alexander type party. I’m not sure that the membership would support a party built around sound public finances.

    It would help if they could put a £ on legalisation of drugs. It should raise tax revenue, and it should decrease costs for legal issues, prisons etc. Will increase costs on NHS, but hopefully quality control might reduce strengths etc.
    I am in favour of taxing it but not sure the money raised directly is the big deal. Back of the envelope time.

    About 2.5m cannabis users spending about £500 per year spend £1.25bn.
    Govt take half in tax raises just over £600m
    Add in other drugs, which would be more controversial perhaps up to £1bn govt revenue.

    A quick google says Holland brings in e400-600m from drugs tax so I am probably too low, if in the right order of magnitude although there is obviously a lot of drugs tourism to Amsterdam. Perhaps £2bn for the UK.

    The impact in improved efficiency on policing and the justice system should be worth several times the tax revenue, as well as improving people's lives by reducing crime.
    Don't forget revenue from the growing side, which I think is not legal in the Netherlands.

    Canada is the test for that.
    Revenue? Won't they just be like any other farmer, wanting bloody handouts?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Of course herd immunity was the plan, why the fuck was literally ever upilitocal hack going "herd immunity is the best plan ever, only an idiot would lockdown, 60% to get covid by then end of autumn is definetly the smart thing to do you plebs".

    We had threads upon threads discussing it here before the handbrake abrupt about turn and the columnists sudden memory holing.

    The irony is of course that the loudest advocate for first herd immunity and then locking down, denying he had ever said the first, was (checks notes) Dominic Cummings.
    The Guardian article suggests he has evidence to the contrary?
    He never has evidence. He just makes shit up. His ‘evidence’ will be ‘I’m saying it so it must be true.’

    And we all know of course that he’s a thoroughly untrustworthy liar.
    There is a difference between Gove-Cummings and Johnson, though.

    Johnson does just make stuff up. Generally on the basis of "what does my current audience want to hear?"

    G-C usually have some sort of factual basis, and lots of footnotes. It's just that their sources get twisted out of all recognition in support of the conclusion they've already reached.

    Though choosing between the approaches is like choosing which painful disease you want to get.

    (On the substantive point, DC is going to need more than this to significantly harm BoJo.)
    Johnson's lying is often "just" a consequence of laziness and failure to seriously engage with the details (when he needs to - micromanagement leads to other issues of course) in favour of simple crowd pleasing solutions.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    The LDs suffered in 2015,2017 and 2019 because they were in coalition with the Conservatives between 2010 and 2015.

    One of their predecessors the Liberal Party also suffered in the 1979 General Election because they had a pact with the Labour government, although this was a bit short of a full coalition.

    It seems that people say that the Tories have been in since 2010 without mentioning the fact that there was a coalition and also that the Labour party were in power during the disastrous Winter of Discontent without mentioning that Liberals propped them up.

    But when it comes to the next General Election, the voters don't forget that they were the people who kept their main political enemies in power and so they are less likely to vote tactically.

    The LDs as well as Labour should have accepted the Brexit referendum result even if their senior members didn't like it, there will be many people who previously voted for them who also voted leave and were disgusted by their behaviour in the 2017-2019 Parliament.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,944
    alex_ said:

    The dangerous thing that may well come out of this pandemic is the conclusion that potential new virus's should result in an automatic rush for worst case scenarios and on the hoof measures and extreme economic and public health measures put in place commensurate with that.

    The priority should be investing heavily in early warning systems and an infrastructure that manages to narrow risk scenarios as potential threats are identified as soon as possible - but we shouldn't need to be in a position where we are spending money on the basis that a once in a hundred years scenario will happen every other year.

    The danger that could arise is that people could lose sight of the reality that new virus's can come in many forms - many won't even get off the ground and reach epidemic status, let alone pandemic - and also at various levels of danger to public health. Because people are now becoming obsessed by the potential for (implicitly dangerous) "virus mutations" even the most mild of virus may in future be treated with extreme.

    When investigating the Government approach to Covid and learning lessons for the future, it would be well to consider how having learned those lessons they would be applied in practice to, say, the 2010 Swine flu pandemic.

    At risk of channelling my inner Dominic Cummings, we also need to be able easily to commission urgent research in order to fill knowledge gaps. To take just one example, very early we did not know how the virus spreads: droplets or aerosols?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,593
    IanB2 said:

    Fishing said:

    This article is unconvincing or simply wrong on a number of levels.

    First, as the chart on this page about 3/4 of the way down shows:

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/

    The Lib Dems held steady in terms of councillors when Cameron was elected - between 2006 and 2010, Conservative gains came from Labour. They only started to collapse after they entered government in 2010.

    Second, as the article notes, the Lib Dems haven't really recovered since Cameron left. If he were the explanation, you'd expect some uptick in 2016 or 2017. TMay was very different from David Cameron, but they failed to make any headway against her.

    Third, it is national elections that count, not local ones, in this country, and the Lib Dem performance in 2010 was the same as in 2005 - why would that be if Cameron were so toxic to the Lib Dems?

    Fourth, all the evidence shows that Cameron was a poor performer electorally. He couldn't win a majority against Gordon Brown after the latter had completely screwed up the UK economy and was for a while the least popular PM in history.

    David Cameron didn't slay the Lib Dems, or even damage them much. It was their own behaviour in the 2010-5 government that has doomed them to insignificance.

    Good points, with the caveat that there really aren’t any success stories of junior partners not being punished in coalition. Therefore the question isn’t so much what mistakes did the LibDems make (which of course they did) but whether there was anything they could have done to buck a very well established trend?
    They should have stayed out of formal coalition. Inadvertently Cameron did do for the LDs. " Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Pete, would've been worse for the country. Plus the Lib Dems spent ages banging on about coalitions being good things (which does, at least, tally with their bizarre love of PR).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    alex_ said:

    Johnson's lying is often "just" a consequence of laziness and failure to seriously engage with the details (when he needs to - micromanagement leads to other issues of course) in favour of simple crowd pleasing solutions.

    And often he just flat out lies.

    "I paid for the wallpaper", as an example
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557

    IanB2 said:

    Unusually early and off topic, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    There is still an internationalist-minded cohort of Tory MPs who don’t like what these [aid] cuts say about the values of their party and who will rebel if they get the opportunity. In a recent Commons debate, the Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell invited the chancellor to think about the “very savage” damage being done to both “the poorest people in the world” and “Britain’s reputation”.

    It would take 44 Conservative MPs combining with the opposition parties to defeat the government. Remarks one of the Tory dissenters: “We’ve probably got that number and the government knows we’ve probably got that number, which is why they are running shy of a vote.”

    Ministers are swerving a reckoning in parliament by arguing that they are not changing the target, but choosing to miss it for an unspecified amount of time, a shameless exercise in semantics. The case that the government is behaving unlawfully could be taken to court, but it would likely take at least a year to secure a verdict. The Tory rebels are hoping to find a piece of legislation to which they can attach an amendment designed to force a government retreat. “We are lying in wait for an amendment,” says one of them.

    Cutting aid is one thing. Cutting aid while complaining about China buying influence is another. It is the same in decades gone by as cutting the BBC World Service. If soft power is a game that government wants to play then it needs to will the means as well as the end. If it saves any lives, that's a bonus.
    I'm completely unconvinced by the argument that development aid buys soft power. People who put it forward never produce any evidence. And, anyway, we need goodwill in Washington, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo - not Kathmandu, Bangui or Ouagadougou.
This discussion has been closed.