Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
In House of Cards (UK version) Francis Urquhart bigged up one leadership contender knowing full well he was the Party Chairman’s chosen candidate then got the PM to sack the Party Chairman for disloyalty knowing the Chairman hadn’t been disloyal but knew the PM’s supporters would back anyone who was best placed to beat the Chairman’s chosen candidate.
Michael Dobbs knows what he wrote about.
...yeah but, Cummings' scheme is even more sophisticated than Urquhart's scheme, and Urquhart was a fictional Machiavellian characature....
Is it not well attested that real world Machiavellian characters are stranger than fictional Machiavellian caricatures ?
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Excellent post. Very true.
It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.
I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
Tory is superfluous in that piece. The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors. Master of public persona, political tactics and communication. Long term ideas to build a better future? Not so much.
Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
What's Harold Wilson ever done for us? Open University, legalised abortions, decriminalised homosexuality, abolished hanging.
I think that you can make a case for Roy Jenkins being our finest Home Secretary since the war. I really wouldn't want to choose between Mrs May and Priti Patel but they are both seriously near the worst.
Best Home Secretary since the war is Amber Rudd.
Coincidentally she is responsible for me winning TWO 33/1 bets in the space of 12 hours.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Well, I probably met her more times and spoke to her more than you did.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
It wasn't possible at the start to test everyone going from hospitals to care homes as there wasn't the testing capacity.
Plus subsidiary point: most of increase in virus in care homes came from workers going in and out; not people coming from hospitals.
Indeed that is clear by Hancock’s statement just now
If there wasn't the testing capacity, the discharge plan should have been amended to "anywhere but a care home"
Too difficult to find somewhere and staff it, it is not like the country's hotels were forcibly vacated and there were almost 1m volunteers registering to help at the time.....
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Trying to be objective, I feel that is surely right. She valued principles, public service, honesty, consistency, and frugality. And in doing what she felt was right irrespective of public opinion or the last person who happened to have sat on her.
It wasn't possible at the start to test everyone going from hospitals to care homes as there wasn't the testing capacity.
Plus subsidiary point: most of increase in virus in care homes came from workers going in and out; not people coming from hospitals.
Indeed that is clear by Hancock’s statement just now
If there wasn't the testing capacity, the discharge plan should have been amended to "anywhere but a care home"
Jenny Harries has just affirmed there was a small number of hospital transfers and the main reason for the deaths in homes was due to carers and others coming into the buildings
That data needs to be widely published (and critiqued) or people will keep trying to address the wrong issues.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
She hated crushing the left in epic landslides? A novel take on the Iron lady.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Compared to you perhaps. The reality is Boris Johnson will sit in the centre if it suits his ego. He will sit on the far right if that does too, and possibly even on the left. Reality is he is all over the shop because he is a man that lives in a morality vacuum.
As we have repeatedly established today already I am now very old but I do remember when we had a word for people like that. It was....pragmatist. Pre Thatcher the broad consensus was that people preferred such people to ideologues by a fairly wide margin. Ideology was regarded as slightly unBritish.
To be fair, Boris doesn’t really have an ideology. Or if he does, it’s a primitive kind of narcisstic “boosterism”.
Is boosterism the portmanteau for Wooster and Boris?
I am not sure you have got the hang of this polling mullarkey.
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
To be fair, the headline quotes were all over the internet, and on the overnight front pages, so those who answer opinion polls would probably have been influenced to some extent.
I suspect you are clutching at straws here, unless opinion poll respondents behave like I do with my tax returns and submit them on the evening of January 31st. Most I would hazard, do not.
I thought they were asked over the period 25-26 May. ie yesterday and the day before, when the Cummings bombshells were all over the media
Most of the survey took place before Cumming's testimony and 50% before any of it had been given, wait until Saturday for Opinium which started polling today to see if there has been any impact
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
Sorry, this is tosh.
That's how I'd define the TIGers and current Lib Dems.
Remind me how well they're polling?
Badly.
But what’s that got to do with your nonsensical premise?
I've described the policy positions and attitudes of those who most frequently describe themselves as centrists; my point being the centre isn't where they think it is.
If you think I've got that wrong then I'd be interested in hearing your take.
You didn’t describe the policy positions of “centrists”. You enumerated a list of sneering attributes and things you don’t like, and then said that they applied to centrists.
If your point is that most people aren’t centrist (and therefore aren’t voting centrist parties) I also don’t agree.
I’d describe Labour, Lib Dem and the Tories as all economically centrist at this point in time. The Tories have moved “left” but not coherently so. In some other ways they have moved “right”. The main way they have moved is Boris-wards.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Excellent post. Very true.
It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.
I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
Tory is superfluous in that piece. The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors. Master of public persona, political tactics and communication. Long term ideas to build a better future? Not so much.
Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
What's Harold Wilson ever done for us? Open University, legalised abortions, decriminalised homosexuality, abolished hanging.
I think that you can make a case for Roy Jenkins being our finest Home Secretary since the war. I really wouldn't want to choose between Mrs May and Priti Patel but they are both seriously near the worst.
Best Home Secretary since the war is Amber Rudd.
Coincidentally she is responsible for me winning TWO 33/1 bets in the space of 12 hours.
That might be a slightly narrow, if understandable, perspective.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Trying to be objective, I feel that is surely right. She valued principles, public service, honesty, consistency, and frugality. And in doing what she felt was right irrespective of public opinion or the last person who happened to have sat on her.
She would probably have done the wallpaper in the Downing Street flat herself. Using wood chip wallpaper.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
She hated crushing the left in epic landslides? A novel take on the Iron lady.
Oh dear, I need to explain this to you again. To paraphrase the great woman, it is essential to win elections to gain power, but then you have to exercise power. I know you think he is marvellous because he wins elections, but the second part is extremely questionable about Johnson. Mrs T knew how to win elections, and how to govern. She wasn't a disorganised incompetent pillock who craved people's (particularly people like you) adulation.
Unfit for office ! Bloody hell, something said by Cummings that I completely agree with.
Surge testing when there's a localised outbreak will give a slightly distorted impression so I don't think there's any reason to panic.
It may be local but patients admitted up 20% in the last 7 days is not good.
In England we’ve had 28 days in a row of fewer than 100 hospitalisations which IS good.
Sure, these increases are from a very low base and the percentages exaggerate as a result. But it is disappointing.
One thing to note - yes an increase in admissions, but the total in hospital is not rising. Signs of patients going in being less sick than before? I think so.
As of yesterday I believe the total in hospital was under 1,000 and falling nationwide?
When all the data is in (still awaiting that from Northern Ireland, which will be in the close region of 30), the number will be sub-900 for yesterday. Down to 742 in England.
Prime Minister Jennie Harries says 21 June is 'really on the cusp' right now.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
Your pretending that advisers are not accountable to elected persons is not convincing.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
Surge testing when there's a localised outbreak will give a slightly distorted impression so I don't think there's any reason to panic.
It may be local but patients admitted up 20% in the last 7 days is not good.
In England we’ve had 28 days in a row of fewer than 100 hospitalisations which IS good.
Sure, these increases are from a very low base and the percentages exaggerate as a result. But it is disappointing.
One thing to note - yes an increase in admissions, but the total in hospital is not rising. Signs of patients going in being less sick than before? I think so.
As of yesterday I believe the total in hospital was under 1,000 and falling nationwide?
When all the data is in (still awaiting that from Northern Ireland, which will be in the close region of 30), the number will be sub-900 for yesterday. Down to 742 in England.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
No she wouldn't, she'd have been very uncomfortable with
1) The threat of violating international agreements with things like the internal market bill
2) She would have been disgusted with the fuck business agenda
3) The government's plan for increasing state aid has her spinning in her grave
4) The attacks of the judiciary and legal profession would not only offend her personally but as a democrat
5) The weakening of the Union thanks to various policies
There's many many other reasons but that's just the start.
I agree with 2) and 3). I will grant 1) and 4) a '...possibly', though I hae ma doots. I don't think I agree with 5). If weakening the union amounts to 'doing things which are not popular in Scotland' I give you exhibit a) the poll tax.
I think one of her big reservations about this government is it's chasing of popularity. She positively courted unpopularity early in a term in order to put in place the measures she thought were needed to bring longer-term prosperity and therefore electoral success.
Also, she would have been much warier of a) furlough, and b) inflationary pressures.
But it is difficult to guess what leaders from other eras who faced other priorities would have done. (Easier with Thatcher than most, mind.)
Prime Minister Jennie Harries says 21 June is 'really on the cusp' right now.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
Your pretending that advisers are not accountable to elected persons is not convincing.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
The government has said time and again it follows the science.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Well, I probably met her more times and spoke to her more than you did.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
Yes I have met lots of Tory grandees too, but I don't claim to be privy to their thoughts. I have studied her writings, and her politics. So I refer to my previous answer, she would have despised Johnson. As for her advocating withdrawal from EU, that is unlikely. We know she did not like the direction of travel at the time of Bruges, but try hard as you Brexiteers did at the time of the referendum there was no hard evidence except hearsay from people with an axe to grind.
What is known is that she was rightly proud of the single market and her part in making it happen, and EU expansion. These were her legacies that you Brexiteers trashed.
Prime Minister Jennie Harries says 21 June is 'really on the cusp' right now.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
Your pretending that advisers are not accountable to elected persons is not convincing.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
The government has said time and again it follows the science.
What Harries says goes.
Did you not get the memo?
Harries is the person who told us only stupid countries wear masks.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Compared to you perhaps. The reality is Boris Johnson will sit in the centre if it suits his ego. He will sit on the far right if that does too, and possibly even on the left. Reality is he is all over the shop because he is a man that lives in a morality vacuum.
As we have repeatedly established today already I am now very old but I do remember when we had a word for people like that. It was....pragmatist. Pre Thatcher the broad consensus was that people preferred such people to ideologues by a fairly wide margin. Ideology was regarded as slightly unBritish.
I've always wanted to do a "Whatever Works" party.
Our system of government would be that for any policy area (say law & order) we'd get together interested parties, design a series of trials with success and failure conditions, and then we'd try four or five different approaches in different areas, and see what had the best result.
Assuming it was a meaningful improvement, we'd then roll it out nationwide.
So, we'd make no assumptions at the beginning about what would actually be successful. Take law & order and the question of "what works" as far as prisons. We'd put together five or six different trials with different mixtures and types of punishment and deterrance and rehabilitation. We'd judge it based on cost, reduction in crimes committed in the area more generally, and on re-offending. And we'd see what works. And sure, it'd be a five year process, but at least we'd get real data to work with.
I don't know what would be the winning system. But I do know how to design a trial.
The same principle could be expanded to health, to education, etc. Now, people will fight over what constitutes success and failure (and that's fine), but everyone has to agree to be bound by reality.
It wasn't possible at the start to test everyone going from hospitals to care homes as there wasn't the testing capacity.
Plus subsidiary point: most of increase in virus in care homes came from workers going in and out; not people coming from hospitals.
1) Why did they make no attempt to isolate discharge patients before putting them into care homes ? 2) On the subsidiary point, how do they know if there was no testing ?
Interesting that with most of the serious arguments on here, the protagonists clearly still fall on the sides of mostly pro and anti Brexit. The campaign, and the result, revealed a very deep divide.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
She hated crushing the left in epic landslides? A novel take on the Iron lady.
That is just getting the job, not doing the job.
Surely it's both - Theresa May is far more personally scrupulous than Boris, but her political incompetence almost made Corbyn Prime Minister and produced near-total gridlock in policy-making to boot. Am I seriously meant to prefer her?
Until Boris came along, every Conservative leader since Thatcher has managed to deliver slim majorities at best, and humiliating defeats at worst. It is such a novelty in my lifetime for the Tories to return to that level of electoral dominance that I don't have all that much respect for the supposedly upstanding plodders who gave us those decades of famine.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Trying to be objective, I feel that is surely right. She valued principles, public service, honesty, consistency, and frugality. And in doing what she felt was right irrespective of public opinion or the last person who happened to have sat on her.
Mrs Thatcher was not too keen on Old Etonians with a sense of entitlement.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
It is rightwing to wealthy urban Remainers and graduates, it is dead centre for the working class and lower middle class voters who decide elections.
It's right wing to the hard of thinking, the reasoning being: "I am left wing" "I don't like this government" "Therefore this government is right wing" "Actually, I really, really don't like this government" "Therefore this government is really, really right wing"
I remember back in 2007 the similarly hard of thinking decrying any policy they disagreed with as 'neoliberal'.
I remember when John Majors government was described as a move to the "extreme right" after the 1997 election.
I dunno, I suspect I mix with more Labour people per week than any of you do per year. The people I talk to mostly regard the Tories as unprincipled magpies rather than extreme right-wing. The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
That doesn't mean that they don't see extreme right-wing elements popping up - the definition of the magpie is that it's not choosy. If being disgusting to asylum-seekers or ready to slash foreign aid is popular, the Government will do it like a shot. That makes them disturbing in a way that, say, John Major was not - you could go on holiday for two weeks and not come home to find Britain had done something like proposing to break international law.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Well, I probably met her more times and spoke to her more than you did.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
As a student I once threw an egg at her. That must surely promote my opinion up above those of PB plebs who never had any interaction with her at all?
News report from @Stodge - the man nearly on the spot.
Off to Chinatown with Mrs Stodge and friends - when we got into Gerrard Street we could see crowds and police in both Macclesfield Street and Gerrard Place. We thought it was some "celebrity" from Hong Kong or the Mainland and went off to the Lotus Garden for an excellent lunch.
By the time we left, the Police were still there but so were the anti-vax mob handing out leaflets and, enjoying the adulation of the masses (well, a couple of people anyway) was the great man himself, Piers Corbyn. I resisted the urge to genuflect before the Great Man as I'm sure we all would.
The crowd was mostly younger people - most with masks to be fair but no social distancing whatsoever.
We only read about what had happened on the way home - there was no sign of a "Vaccine Bus" when we arrived just after 1pm. As to whether one arrived while I was enjoying an excellent roast duck, I can't say because I was enjoying an excellent roast duck.
It does seem the Government may have realised there are more people here than they think - there is a statistically small but not insignificant group of people who live under the radar and have no official existence. That means they will never be contacted or vaccinated through the normal channels.
No damn this bloody government. damn the SAGE committee.
Other governments have had the courage to restore freedom. You can argue about the relative cost, but what you cannot argue is that the people of Florida, Texas and Sweden are much freer than we are.
Are there more cases and deaths? and few vaccinations? possibly.
But we should now, surely, get the choice to decide what we want.
Prime Minister Jennie Harries says 21 June is 'really on the cusp' right now.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
Your pretending that advisers are not accountable to elected persons is not convincing.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
The government has said time and again it follows the science.
What Harries says goes.
Did you not get the memo?
Harries is the person who told us only stupid countries wear masks.
and more US states are voting to throw out mask mandates as we speak.
"Rob Roberts: Commons leader calls on MP to stand down
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has increased the pressure on Conservative MP Rob Roberts to resign. He said it would be "honourable" for the Delyn MP to stand down after an investigation found he sexually harassed an employee."
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Well, I probably met her more times and spoke to her more than you did.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
But she was also a person of impeachable personal morals, who would be scandalised by Boris Johnson's disdain for the truth. I'm not sure her Methodist work ethic would have have meshed well with Boris either.
The real difference, though, is that Mrs Thatcher valued process. And I'd argue that was why she was increasingly Eurosceptic towards the end: systems that work, with built in checks and balances, were to her more important than absolute policy ends. And it's why even if she'd agreed with the direction of policy travel in the EU, such as with the Single Market, she hated the process erosion that came with it.
And who elected science? Or arithmetic? In what way are the Laws of Mechanics subject to the electorate? Why can't we repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics? Who passed them?
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
No she wouldn't, she'd have been very uncomfortable with
1) The threat of violating international agreements with things like the internal market bill
2) She would have been disgusted with the fuck business agenda
3) The government's plan for increasing state aid has her spinning in her grave
4) The attacks of the judiciary and legal profession would not only offend her personally but as a democrat
5) The weakening of the Union thanks to various policies
There's many many other reasons but that's just the start.
I agree with 2) and 3). I will grant 1) and 4) a '...possibly', though I hae ma doots. I don't think I agree with 5). If weakening the union amounts to 'doing things which are not popular in Scotland' I give you exhibit a) the poll tax.
I think one of her big reservations about this government is it's chasing of popularity. She positively courted unpopularity early in a term in order to put in place the measures she thought were needed to bring longer-term prosperity and therefore electoral success.
Also, she would have been much warier of a) furlough, and b) inflationary pressures.
But it is difficult to guess what leaders from other eras who faced other priorities would have done. (Easier with Thatcher than most, mind.)
If you want the ultimate difference between Thatcher and Johnson, just compare her handling of the AIDS pandemic and the Covid-19 pandemic.
She was a scientist who understood the dangers of exponential growth but also she didn't have an ego and allowed herself to be overruled by the cabinet. She read every briefing paper, stayed up late into the night making sure she fully understand everything. She was the original girly SWOT.
Can you imagine this cabinet of pygmies having the cojones to overrule Boris Johnson and him accepting that?
There's a reason why Thatcher's government is lauded for being the best in the world for dealing with the AIDS.
Bear in mind she was getting lambasted for focussing on helping 'poofters' and HIV/AIDS victims were swirling in a human cesspit of their own making".
Very honourable mention to Lord Fowler, who is a secular saint, not many politicians can say they helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
It wasn't possible at the start to test everyone going from hospitals to care homes as there wasn't the testing capacity.
Plus subsidiary point: most of increase in virus in care homes came from workers going in and out; not people coming from hospitals.
Indeed that is clear by Hancock’s statement just now
If there wasn't the testing capacity, the discharge plan should have been amended to "anywhere but a care home"
Too difficult to find somewhere and staff it, it is not like the country's hotels were forcibly vacated and there were almost 1m volunteers registering to help at the time.....
Dispatching patients into inadequately equipped hotels staffed by untrained randoms? That's just about the only plan worse than what they did (especially given that volunteers are going to give less time on average than FT staff, resulting in *more* people would be entering and leaving the quasi care-homes than normal care homes.
Prime Minister Jennie Harries says 21 June is 'really on the cusp' right now.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
Your pretending that advisers are not accountable to elected persons is not convincing.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
The government has said time and again it follows the science.
What Harries says goes.
Did you not get the memo?
It chooses to follow the science.
There have been several stories over the past year where advisers have encountered resistance from government, Boris was getting accused of it over being reluctant to lockdown Autumn last year.
Maybe it hasn't resisted enough, maybe it has resisted too much, whatever, the choice remains that of the elected.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Excellent post. Very true.
It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.
I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
Tory is superfluous in that piece. The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors. Master of public persona, political tactics and communication. Long term ideas to build a better future? Not so much.
Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
Harold Wilson kept Britain out of the Vietnam war when I think most British PMs would have signed up with enthusiasm. Not leaving a legacy is absolutely fine, as he made the right call at the right time.
News report from @Stodge - the man nearly on the spot.
Off to Chinatown with Mrs Stodge and friends - when we got into Gerrard Street we could see crowds and police in both Macclesfield Street and Gerrard Place. We thought it was some "celebrity" from Hong Kong or the Mainland and went off to the Lotus Garden for an excellent lunch.
By the time we left, the Police were still there but so were the anti-vax mob handing out leaflets and, enjoying the adulation of the masses (well, a couple of people anyway) was the great man himself, Piers Corbyn. I resisted the urge to genuflect before the Great Man as I'm sure we all would.
The crowd was mostly younger people - most with masks to be fair but no social distancing whatsoever.
We only read about what had happened on the way home - there was no sign of a "Vaccine Bus" when we arrived just after 1pm. As to whether one arrived while I was enjoying an excellent roast duck, I can't say because I was enjoying an excellent roast duck.
It does seem the Government may have realised there are more people here than they think - there is a statistically small but not insignificant group of people who live under the radar and have no official existence. That means they will never be contacted or vaccinated through the normal channels.
Anecdata: a Chinese friend has not been jabbed because he fears the side-effects. Maybe there is something circulating to this effect amongst the community.
And who elected science? Or arithmetic? In what way are the Laws of Mechanics subject to the electorate? Why can't we repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics? Who passed them?
Florida, Texas, South Dakota and Sweden have shattered the 'science' of the SAGE committee.
I've always wanted to do a "Whatever Works" party.
Our system of government would be that for any policy area (say law & order) we'd get together interested parties, design a series of trials with success and failure conditions, and then we'd try four or five different approaches in different areas, and see what had the best result.
Assuming it was a meaningful improvement, we'd then roll it out nationwide.
So, we'd make no assumptions at the beginning about what would actually be successful. Take law & order and the question of "what works" as far as prisons. We'd put together five or six different trials with different mixtures and types of punishment and deterrence and rehabilitation. We'd judge it based on cost, reduction in crimes committed in the area more generally, and on re-offending. And we'd see what works. And sure, it'd be a five year process, but at least we'd get real data to work with.
I don't know what would be the winning system. But I do know how to design a trial.
The same principle could be expanded to health, to education, etc. Now, people will fight over what constitutes success and failure (and that's fine), but everyone has to agree to be bound by reality.
I believe that's what's called a Technocratic Government - non ideological and with a narrow focus on particular issues.
It would kill off the partisan aspects of Party politics with the notion of competing programmes and "visions". Your idea of an empirical approach to policy making and execution, apart from sounding far too sensible, does at least have the possibility of arguing over what constitutes success or failure.
The problem is some policy areas, such as climate change or transport infrastructural improvements, can have windows of 20 or 30 years before repayment of initial investments or evidence of enhanced economic growth.
As I said the other day, political parties are about the journey not the destination. Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism may purport to utopian end states but each is in their own ways unachievable but the attempt to achieve utopia keeps the struggle going.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
Sorry, this is tosh.
That's how I'd define the TIGers and current Lib Dems.
Remind me how well they're polling?
Badly.
But what’s that got to do with your nonsensical premise?
I've described the policy positions and attitudes of those who most frequently describe themselves as centrists; my point being the centre isn't where they think it is.
If you think I've got that wrong then I'd be interested in hearing your take.
You didn’t describe the policy positions of “centrists”. You enumerated a list of sneering attributes and things you don’t like, and then said that they applied to centrists.
If your point is that most people aren’t centrist (and therefore aren’t voting centrist parties) I also don’t agree.
I’d describe Labour, Lib Dem and the Tories as all economically centrist at this point in time. The Tories have moved “left” but not coherently so. In some other ways they have moved “right”. The main way they have moved is Boris-wards.
IMHO centrist is a useful term meaning all democratic politics from left to right but excluding extremism. Virtually all GB politics is centrist; the fact there was a doubt about Jezza's place in the spectrum was why he could never be in power.
To describe as non centrist for example policies like Brexit or Remain or well founded arguments for regional independence like SNP, PC, SDLP is not sensible.
The astonishing feature of Lab/Con/LD politics in Britain is how alike and centrist they all are, and how few deep and profound as opposed to trivial and passing policy differences there are.
Brexit continues to be fascinating because it was the big exception. But the whole debate is well within centrist boundaries.
As of course is this government and the opposition.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Excellent post. Very true.
It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.
I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
Tory is superfluous in that piece. The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors. Master of public persona, political tactics and communication. Long term ideas to build a better future? Not so much.
Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
That's true economically, but socially, I can hardly think of a more transformative British government than the 1964-70 one:
- aboliton of capital punishment - legalisation of abortion - Race Relations Act - legalisation of homosexuality - covering our cities with hideous, shoddily built tower blocks - planning decimalisation (implemented by Heath)
In foreign policy, there was the withdrawal from East of Suez and the decision not to help the Americans in Vietnam.
Some of those were mistakes, but together they're an impressive list.
This: https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1397935470336741382 is where we are re: hospitalisations against the government's roadmap. I think. If hospitalisations do as we expect, then no reason to fear any changes to June 21st. Assuming the government don't decide to suddenly change the metrics. They wouldn't do that, though, would they?
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
It is rightwing to wealthy urban Remainers and graduates, it is dead centre for the working class and lower middle class voters who decide elections.
It's right wing to the hard of thinking, the reasoning being: "I am left wing" "I don't like this government" "Therefore this government is right wing" "Actually, I really, really don't like this government" "Therefore this government is really, really right wing"
I remember back in 2007 the similarly hard of thinking decrying any policy they disagreed with as 'neoliberal'.
I remember when John Majors government was described as a move to the "extreme right" after the 1997 election.
I dunno, I suspect I mix with more Labour people per week than any of you do per year. The people I talk to mostly regard the Tories as unprincipled magpies rather than extreme right-wing. The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
That doesn't mean that they don't see extreme right-wing elements popping up - the definition of the magpie is that it's not choosy. If being disgusting to asylum-seekers or ready to slash foreign aid is popular, the Government will do it like a shot. That makes them disturbing in a way that, say, John Major was not - you could go on holiday for two weeks and not come home to find Britain had done something like proposing to break international law.
We’d all be better off if the Labour Party just got on with dying quickly, rather than slowly.
Last night’s IOW council meeting. The council on a knife edge after the elections in which the Tories, just, and against the trend, lose their majority.
The single Labour councillor doesn’t even turn up. And issues a statement that, whilst claiming to be ‘anti-Tory’, announces that he isn’t willing to be part of any alternative coalition to run the council.
So it falls to an ex UKIP guy - with more integrity than the skiving Labour fellow - to cast the critical vote in favour of the new Independent/all-party administration.
Then, when it comes to the allocation of committee places, it becomes clear that the Labour guy has excluded himself from the ‘alliance grouping’ and hence becomes an opposition councillor for proportionality purposes - the opposition now being 18 Tories and one Labour.
My contempt for the Labour Party has never been deeper.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Well, I probably met her more times and spoke to her more than you did.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
But she was also a person of impeachable personal morals, who would be scandalised by Boris Johnson's disdain for the truth. I'm not sure her Methodist work ethic would have have meshed well with Boris either.
The real difference, though, is that Mrs Thatcher valued process. And I'd argue that was why she was increasingly Eurosceptic towards the end: systems that work, with built in checks and balances, were to her more important than absolute policy ends. And it's why even if she'd agreed with the direction of policy travel in the EU, such as with the Single Market, she hated the process erosion that came with it.
Guess the best parallel from the time was Alan Clark. My understanding is that Mrs T was amused by him, happy to accept his flattery, without ever really taking him seriously.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
It is rightwing to wealthy urban Remainers and graduates, it is dead centre for the working class and lower middle class voters who decide elections.
It's right wing to the hard of thinking, the reasoning being: "I am left wing" "I don't like this government" "Therefore this government is right wing" "Actually, I really, really don't like this government" "Therefore this government is really, really right wing"
I remember back in 2007 the similarly hard of thinking decrying any policy they disagreed with as 'neoliberal'.
I remember when John Majors government was described as a move to the "extreme right" after the 1997 election.
I dunno, I suspect I mix with more Labour people per week than any of you do per year. The people I talk to mostly regard the Tories as unprincipled magpies rather than extreme right-wing. The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
That doesn't mean that they don't see extreme right-wing elements popping up - the definition of the magpie is that it's not choosy. If being disgusting to asylum-seekers or ready to slash foreign aid is popular, the Government will do it like a shot. That makes them disturbing in a way that, say, John Major was not - you could go on holiday for two weeks and not come home to find Britain had done something like proposing to break international law.
We’d all be better off if the Labour Party just got on with dying quickly, rather than slowly.
Last night’s IOW council meeting. The council on a knife edge after the elections in which the Tories, just, and against the trend, lose their majority.
The single Labour councillor doesn’t even turn up. And issues a statement that, whilst claiming to be ‘anti-Tory’, announces that he isn’t willing to be part of any alternative coalition to run the council.
So it falls to an ex UKIP guy - with more integrity than the skiving Labour fellow - to cast the critical vote in favour of the new Independent/all-party administration.
Then, when it comes to the allocation of committee places, it becomes clear that the Labour guy has excluded himself from the ‘alliance grouping’ and hence becomes an opposition councillor for proportionality purposes - the opposition now being 18 Tories and one Labour.
My contempt for the Labour Party has never been deeper.
Didn’t they basically do something similar at the GLA?
Then moaned that the Greens and Lib Dems were in league with the Tories, which was utter bolleaux.
meanwhile anybody accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer really should look at the story about a BBC presenter's passing away that is being trumpeted by at least the Mail and the Sun.
It wasn't possible at the start to test everyone going from hospitals to care homes as there wasn't the testing capacity.
Plus subsidiary point: most of increase in virus in care homes came from workers going in and out; not people coming from hospitals.
Indeed that is clear by Hancock’s statement just now
If there wasn't the testing capacity, the discharge plan should have been amended to "anywhere but a care home"
Too difficult to find somewhere and staff it, it is not like the country's hotels were forcibly vacated and there were almost 1m volunteers registering to help at the time.....
Dispatching patients into inadequately equipped hotels staffed by untrained randoms? That's just about the only plan worse than what they did (especially given that volunteers are going to give less time on average than FT staff, resulting in *more* people would be entering and leaving the quasi care-homes than normal care homes.
Well I would have moved a small proportion senior and experienced care home staff to run the hotels and in turn given more of the volunteers back to the care home sector as well as to provide the bulk of staff in the hotels. Within the 1m volunteers there would undoubtedly be tens of thousands with significant prior experience working in care or health sectors.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
The idea that the Tories have implemented Corbynism is really boring and total rubbish. It’s up there with “the Tories are wildly right wing” and “the Tories have gone left wing” as memes.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
It is rightwing to wealthy urban Remainers and graduates, it is dead centre for the working class and lower middle class voters who decide elections.
It's right wing to the hard of thinking, the reasoning being: "I am left wing" "I don't like this government" "Therefore this government is right wing" "Actually, I really, really don't like this government" "Therefore this government is really, really right wing"
I remember back in 2007 the similarly hard of thinking decrying any policy they disagreed with as 'neoliberal'.
I remember when John Majors government was described as a move to the "extreme right" after the 1997 election.
I dunno, I suspect I mix with more Labour people per week than any of you do per year. The people I talk to mostly regard the Tories as unprincipled magpies rather than extreme right-wing. The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
That doesn't mean that they don't see extreme right-wing elements popping up - the definition of the magpie is that it's not choosy. If being disgusting to asylum-seekers or ready to slash foreign aid is popular, the Government will do it like a shot. That makes them disturbing in a way that, say, John Major was not - you could go on holiday for two weeks and not come home to find Britain had done something like proposing to break international law.
We’d all be better off if the Labour Party just got on with dying quickly, rather than slowly.
Last night’s IOW council meeting. The council on a knife edge after the elections in which the Tories, just, and against the trend, lose their majority.
The single Labour councillor doesn’t even turn up. And issues a statement that, whilst claiming to be ‘anti-Tory’, announces that he isn’t willing to be part of any alternative coalition to run the council.
So it falls to an ex UKIP guy - with more integrity than the skiving Labour fellow - to cast the critical vote in favour of the new Independent/all-party administration.
Then, when it comes to the allocation of committee places, it becomes clear that the Labour guy has excluded himself from the ‘alliance grouping’ and hence becomes an opposition councillor for proportionality purposes - the opposition now being 18 Tories and one Labour.
My contempt for the Labour Party has never been deeper.
Didn’t they basically do something similar at the GLA?
Then moaned that the Greens and Lib Dems were in league with the Tories, which was utter bolleaux.
Yes indeed. Because the other parties were - not unreasonably - unwilling to entrust Labour with chairing the Assembly that would be tasked with holding Sadiq to account for the coming term, they took their bat home, refused to put forward nominations for Labour chairs of the scrutiny committees that the other parties were perfectly willing to offer them, and are now trying to spin their way out of this act of political cowardice by claiming some sort of anti-Labour pact.
News report from @Stodge - the man nearly on the spot.
Off to Chinatown with Mrs Stodge and friends - when we got into Gerrard Street we could see crowds and police in both Macclesfield Street and Gerrard Place. We thought it was some "celebrity" from Hong Kong or the Mainland and went off to the Lotus Garden for an excellent lunch.
By the time we left, the Police were still there but so were the anti-vax mob handing out leaflets and, enjoying the adulation of the masses (well, a couple of people anyway) was the great man himself, Piers Corbyn. I resisted the urge to genuflect before the Great Man as I'm sure we all would.
The crowd was mostly younger people - most with masks to be fair but no social distancing whatsoever.
We only read about what had happened on the way home - there was no sign of a "Vaccine Bus" when we arrived just after 1pm. As to whether one arrived while I was enjoying an excellent roast duck, I can't say because I was enjoying an excellent roast duck.
It does seem the Government may have realised there are more people here than they think - there is a statistically small but not insignificant group of people who live under the radar and have no official existence. That means they will never be contacted or vaccinated through the normal channels.
Anecdata: a Chinese friend has not been jabbed because he fears the side-effects. Maybe there is something circulating to this effect amongst the community.
If he's Chinese he can always ask his government for the antidote.
Prime Minister Jennie Harries says 21 June is 'really on the cusp' right now.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
Your pretending that advisers are not accountable to elected persons is not convincing.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
The government has said time and again it follows the science.
What Harries says goes.
Did you not get the memo?
"The science" wanted a lockdown in September. Fuckwits like you didn't.
meanwhile anybody accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer really should look at the story about a BBC presenter's passing away that is being trumpeted by at least the Mail and the Sun.
That's anti-Vaxxism, right there.
Have you taken the vaccine yet? Or are you and @Dura_Ace still flying the flag for antivaxxery on this site?
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Well said.
The likes of TIGgers etc love to call themselves "centrists" when they're not remotely in the centre. Boris is ruthlessly centrist right now.
Centrist doesn't mean centrist. It means: internationalist, technocratic, elitist, snooty, trendy, socially "progressive", dismissive of British institutions and culture, and self-interested.
The SDP, the Wets and Edward Heath were their forebears.
By your definition Thatcher was a centrist.
She was an internationalist, supported the EC and NATO.
Elitist because she smashed grammar schools.
She was trendy because she believed in combating climate change.
Socially progressive because she civilised the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality.
She was very dismissive of British institutions, remember all those industries she privatised and she smashed the the British trade unions.
Thatcher would have been very comfortable with today's Conservative Party.
You clearly know very little about Margaret Thatcher. She would have despised Johnson. He is everything she hated
Well, I probably met her more times and spoke to her more than you did.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
But she was also a person of impeachable personal morals, who would be scandalised by Boris Johnson's disdain for the truth. I'm not sure her Methodist work ethic would have have meshed well with Boris either.
The real difference, though, is that Mrs Thatcher valued process. And I'd argue that was why she was increasingly Eurosceptic towards the end: systems that work, with built in checks and balances, were to her more important than absolute policy ends. And it's why even if she'd agreed with the direction of policy travel in the EU, such as with the Single Market, she hated the process erosion that came with it.
Guess the best parallel from the time was Alan Clark. My understanding is that Mrs T was amused by him, happy to accept his flattery, without ever really taking him seriously.
Just before my time but maybe Jeffrey Archer might be a better parallel?
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
Are you expecting Great British Railways to be privatised soon?
That's our Pandemic Preparedness Strategy. Remember that we were supposed to be one of the best prepared countries in the world for this?
But take a closer look at it.
The Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy
Everything in it is targeted at influenza.
So the takeaway is:
- Maybe don't do all your pandemic planning and preparation around one single disease?
Things like:
- This influenza outbreak will all be over in 1-3 months (Coronavirus: Big Nope)
- We judge face masks in the wider population are of limited use against influenza (Fine, but they're pretty useful against coronavirus)
- We'll use the existing seasonal influenza testing and surveillance system for the outbreak (Umm, no, that doesn't help with testing for coronavirus)
- People are infectious for about 2-4 days and not very infectious prior to symptoms (Not for coronavirus: 5-10 days, and up to 14 days, and the pre-symptomatic period is crucial)
- The disease isn't very airborne; compulsively washing hands to avoid fomites is crucial (Coronavirus is primarily airborne/aerosol; fomite transmission appears negligible)
- There is minimal effect from stopping mass gatherings (For coronavirus, stopping mass gatherings is the single biggest low hanging fruit)
- There is little point in closing the borders (Australia and New Zealand bend over laughing; we then wait for ages even stopping flights from places where new Variants of Concern originate)
... etc, etc. We can STILL see hangovers from this plan - which looks to have been very well researched and planned to deal with an influenza epidemic, but somewhere between minimal use and actively detrimental to a different viral pandemic - coming out in things like the reluctance to stop travel.
The one thing we got very right was the vaccine programme, which did have useful small sections in there.
It has been said that the things which really damage you aren't those you're not sure about but those that you are sure of but are wrong about.
And last year the UK had this supposedly 'world leading' plan which turned out to be a long way from world leading in practice.
Even the phrase 'following the science' which was so often heard in the first weeks reeks of arrogance and complacency.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
The idea that the Tories have implemented Corbynism is really boring and total rubbish.
Yes it needs disproving once and for all. From the BBC, these are the 12 key pledges in Corbyn's 2019 manifesto.
1. Increase health budget by 4.3% - Yes 2. Hold a second referendum on Brexit - No 3. Raise minimum wage from £8.21 to £10 - No 4. Stop state pension age rises - No 5. Introduce a National Care Service - No 6. Bring forward net-zero target - No 7. Nationalise water, rail, mail - No 8. Scrap Universal Credit - No 9. Abolish private schools' charitable status - No 10. Free bus travel for under-25s - No 11. Give EU nationals the right to remain - No 12. Build 100,000 council homes a year - No
Is that a wholesale embrace of Corbynism? I make that one out of twelve. They also haven't stolen 10% of the equity of listed companies or put workers' representatives on boards, as Corbyn pledged to do.
Johnson's political philosophy is essentially Peronist, based around the the "three flags" of social justice, political sovereignty and "economic independence" (actually direct State intervention in the economy). So was Juan Peron, a general who came to power in a military coup and admirer of Mussolini "centrist" ? I think there's something about respecting State and democratic institutions that is necessary to be a centrist.
Incidentally, Margaret Thatcher wasn't always a respecter of institutions. She abolished the London government because Londoners didn't vote the way she wanted them to.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
None of these statements are true.
Matt Hancock joins PB?
That is the worst insult anyone has levelled at me after five years on PB.
And I’ve gone head to head with both MalcolmG and the late SeanT.
Have we done this yet? Good news, and not just because of the image of a downbeat Gove:
@paulwaugh Feels very much like Covid passports are dead. @michaelgove sounding very downbeat, says Israel ditching its version cos of high vaccination rates.
Adds it was “always intended it would be for a time limited period…”in the UK and not iron-clad link to June 21 opening.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
Are you expecting Great British Railways to be privatised soon?
No. But neither do I expect railways to be fully nationalised. (Full nationalisation is popular across the voting spectrum to varying degrees in any event, even if it only appeared in Corbyn's manifesto.)
That's our Pandemic Preparedness Strategy. Remember that we were supposed to be one of the best prepared countries in the world for this?
But take a closer look at it.
The Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy
Everything in it is targeted at influenza.
So the takeaway is:
- Maybe don't do all your pandemic planning and preparation around one single disease?
Things like:
- This influenza outbreak will all be over in 1-3 months (Coronavirus: Big Nope)
- We judge face masks in the wider population are of limited use against influenza (Fine, but they're pretty useful against coronavirus)
- We'll use the existing seasonal influenza testing and surveillance system for the outbreak (Umm, no, that doesn't help with testing for coronavirus)
- People are infectious for about 2-4 days and not very infectious prior to symptoms (Not for coronavirus: 5-10 days, and up to 14 days, and the pre-symptomatic period is crucial)
- The disease isn't very airborne; compulsively washing hands to avoid fomites is crucial (Coronavirus is primarily airborne/aerosol; fomite transmission appears negligible)
- There is minimal effect from stopping mass gatherings (For coronavirus, stopping mass gatherings is the single biggest low hanging fruit)
- There is little point in closing the borders (Australia and New Zealand bend over laughing; we then wait for ages even stopping flights from places where new Variants of Concern originate)
... etc, etc. We can STILL see hangovers from this plan - which looks to have been very well researched and planned to deal with an influenza epidemic, but somewhere between minimal use and actively detrimental to a different viral pandemic - coming out in things like the reluctance to stop travel.
The one thing we got very right was the vaccine programme, which did have useful small sections in there.
It has been said that the things which really damage you aren't those you're not sure about but those that you are sure of but are wrong about.
And last year the UK had this supposedly 'world leading' plan which turned out to be a long way from world leading in practice.
Even the phrase 'following the science' which was so often heard in the first weeks reeks of arrogance and complacency.
A potentially huge thing to come out of this pandemic is the demolition of the WHO guidance on respiratory diseases.
Much like the "don't close down travel" guidance is based on an over generalisation of how to deal with Bubonic Plague the Aerosol/Droplets guidance is based on a mis application of how to deal with TB.
It has been a massive fuck up, for years WHO guidance has been allowing respiratory diseases to spread because of this scientific misunderstanding.
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Excellent post. Very true.
It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.
I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
Tory is superfluous in that piece. The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors. Master of public persona, political tactics and communication. Long term ideas to build a better future? Not so much.
Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
Harold Wilson kept Britain out of the Vietnam war when I think most British PMs would have signed up with enthusiasm. Not leaving a legacy is absolutely fine, as he made the right call at the right time.
Wilson was more than happy to see the whole world turn Communist, and not lift a finger to stop it.
The only people anti Vietnam war were stoned with flowers in their hair, there was no rational argument against it.
There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.
In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.
That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.
Excellent post. Very true.
It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.
I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
Tory is superfluous in that piece. The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors. Master of public persona, political tactics and communication. Long term ideas to build a better future? Not so much.
Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
Harold Wilson kept Britain out of the Vietnam war when I think most British PMs would have signed up with enthusiasm. Not leaving a legacy is absolutely fine, as he made the right call at the right time.
Wilson was more than happy to see the whole world turn Communist, and not lift a finger to stop it.
Yes because the Vietnam war, with its total victory for the US and its allies, kicked the communists out of south east asia decisively.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
Are you expecting Great British Railways to be privatised soon?
Boris is an enthusiastic franchising-hater - probably the best thing he ever did as mayor was effectively renationalising the woeful West Anglia line to TfL.
Franchising is dead, thankfully. It was an embarrassment and a disgrace.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
None of these statements are true.
Matt Hancock joins PB?
That is the worst insult anyone has levelled at me after five years on PB.
And I’ve gone head to head with both MalcolmG and the late SeanT.
Most of us are enjoying the warm sunshine of what feels like the first evening of summer, whilst hoping that our Sean is enjoying his evening snowball fight on the slopes of Primrose Hill.
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
Prior to the vaccines it was said that contracting Covid-19 makes tinnitus worse/is a symptom of long Covid.
And who elected science? Or arithmetic? In what way are the Laws of Mechanics subject to the electorate? Why can't we repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics? Who passed them?
Florida, Texas, South Dakota and Sweden have shattered the 'science' of the SAGE committee.
Sure they have. Funny how in the capital of Texas, Austin, people are still expected to wear masks, and owners of any establishment are expected to ensure masks are worn and social distancing is maintained.
"Except as provided in 3.4, a person in control of a site must: 3.2.1. require each individual to wear a face covering except as provided in 2.1.2; 3.2.2. require at least three feet between groups of individuals; 3.2.3. post at least one face covering sign at or near each entrance; and 3.2.4. post, where information for workers is customarily posted, at least one sign in English and at least one sign in Spanish that explains the requirement to remain at least three feet apart and the requirement to wear a face covering. "
It, like all the cities in Texas, still has all the policies it had before. As have the cities in Florida.
But your heroes have made proclamations. Which work for a few government buildings and some rural areas, so, yay! You can claim victory!
(Leaving aside the irony of Swedes having enjoyed less in the way of freedoms than Norwegians and Danes over the past year, of course. But the facts are far less important than proclaiming FREEDOM!! Meanwhile, I've had a lovely meal in a pub with some friends, despite the predicted impossibility of all of that by you, if I recall correctly . A nice rib-eye, as it happens)
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
Prior to the vaccines it was said that contracting Covid-19 makes tinnitus worse/is a symptom of long Covid.
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
The idea that the Tories have implemented Corbynism is really boring and total rubbish.
Yes it needs disproving once and for all. From the BBC, these are the 12 key pledges in Corbyn's 2019 manifesto.
1. Increase health budget by 4.3% - Yes 2. Hold a second referendum on Brexit - No 3. Raise minimum wage from £8.21 to £10 - No 4. Stop state pension age rises - No 5. Introduce a National Care Service - No 6. Bring forward net-zero target - No 7. Nationalise water, rail, mail - No 8. Scrap Universal Credit - No 9. Abolish private schools' charitable status - No 10. Free bus travel for under-25s - No 11. Give EU nationals the right to remain - No 12. Build 100,000 council homes a year - No
Is that a wholesale embrace of Corbynism? I make that one out of twelve. They also haven't stolen 10% of the equity of listed companies or put workers' representatives on boards, as Corbyn pledged to do.
How many of the key pledges in the 2017 and 2019 Tory manifestos have been delivered?
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
Are you expecting Great British Railways to be privatised soon?
Boris is an enthusiastic franchising-hater - probably the best thing he ever did as mayor was effectively renationalising the woeful West Anglia line to TfL.
Franchising is dead, thankfully. It was an embarrassment and a disgrace.
British Rail was a disaster because it was constantly broke, the social market economy was gasping on its last breath for private investment. Why would any private investment come in anywhere with no control and no return?
I've always wanted to do a "Whatever Works" party.
Our system of government would be that for any policy area (say law & order) we'd get together interested parties, design a series of trials with success and failure conditions, and then we'd try four or five different approaches in different areas, and see what had the best result.
Assuming it was a meaningful improvement, we'd then roll it out nationwide.
So, we'd make no assumptions at the beginning about what would actually be successful. Take law & order and the question of "what works" as far as prisons. We'd put together five or six different trials with different mixtures and types of punishment and deterrence and rehabilitation. We'd judge it based on cost, reduction in crimes committed in the area more generally, and on re-offending. And we'd see what works. And sure, it'd be a five year process, but at least we'd get real data to work with.
I don't know what would be the winning system. But I do know how to design a trial.
The same principle could be expanded to health, to education, etc. Now, people will fight over what constitutes success and failure (and that's fine), but everyone has to agree to be bound by reality.
I believe that's what's called a Technocratic Government - non ideological and with a narrow focus on particular issues.
It would kill off the partisan aspects of Party politics with the notion of competing programmes and "visions". Your idea of an empirical approach to policy making and execution, apart from sounding far too sensible, does at least have the possibility of arguing over what constitutes success or failure.
The problem is some policy areas, such as climate change or transport infrastructural improvements, can have windows of 20 or 30 years before repayment of initial investments or evidence of enhanced economic growth.
As I said the other day, political parties are about the journey not the destination. Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism may purport to utopian end states but each is in their own ways unachievable but the attempt to achieve utopia keeps the struggle going.
In business, I'm always super sceptical of people who claim to have the answers. What I want are people who say "I don't know, but I know what we can do to find out". Because the biggest fault - whether in politics, investing or business - in an unwillingness to respond quickly to new information. We seek out that which confirms our beliefs (a trait that is extremely common on pb!), yet that attitude is one that leads almost inexorably to failure.
I don't think technocratic is the word I would use: because technocrats tend to tend to existing bureaucracies, rather than to experiment and tinker.
It is - however - an evidence led approach to policy making.
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
From what I understand from my aunt it is a "ringing" in the ears of some kind. But yes it seems to have no definitive form.
Hancock trying to blame the lack of testing capacity in March for the fact that he didnt put a protective ring round care homes as he had previously falsely claimed (lied)
Let's see the Cabinet minutes.
Seems to me that Cummings claims he came away from Cabinet in March sure that Hancock had said that care home incoming residents would be tested on their way in from hospital.
And not what Hancock claims, that he said all incoming residents would be tested when the tests become available
The leftists like me are wryly amused to see chunks of Corbynism being implemented with nary a squeak from the Tory media who said it'd mean the end of civilisation.
Temporarily implemented because of the pandemic, or permanently like Corbyn wanted? Because those are opposite things, aren't they? And we expect opposite things in extraordinary circumstances, because extra-ordinary and ordinary are opposites.
Are you expecting Great British Railways to be privatised soon?
Boris is an enthusiastic franchising-hater - probably the best thing he ever did as mayor was effectively renationalising the woeful West Anglia line to TfL.
Franchising is dead, thankfully. It was an embarrassment and a disgrace.
British Rail was a disaster because it was constantly broke, the social market economy was gasping on its last breath for private investment. Why would any private investment come in anywhere with no control and no return?
You are easily the most reactionary poster on PB.
Lol. Clearly you never sampled the Silverlink / West Anglia lines.
Far better under TFL - an absolute disgrace before.
I've always wanted to do a "Whatever Works" party.
Our system of government would be that for any policy area (say law & order) we'd get together interested parties, design a series of trials with success and failure conditions, and then we'd try four or five different approaches in different areas, and see what had the best result.
Assuming it was a meaningful improvement, we'd then roll it out nationwide.
So, we'd make no assumptions at the beginning about what would actually be successful. Take law & order and the question of "what works" as far as prisons. We'd put together five or six different trials with different mixtures and types of punishment and deterrence and rehabilitation. We'd judge it based on cost, reduction in crimes committed in the area more generally, and on re-offending. And we'd see what works. And sure, it'd be a five year process, but at least we'd get real data to work with.
I don't know what would be the winning system. But I do know how to design a trial.
The same principle could be expanded to health, to education, etc. Now, people will fight over what constitutes success and failure (and that's fine), but everyone has to agree to be bound by reality.
I believe that's what's called a Technocratic Government - non ideological and with a narrow focus on particular issues.
It would kill off the partisan aspects of Party politics with the notion of competing programmes and "visions". Your idea of an empirical approach to policy making and execution, apart from sounding far too sensible, does at least have the possibility of arguing over what constitutes success or failure.
The problem is some policy areas, such as climate change or transport infrastructural improvements, can have windows of 20 or 30 years before repayment of initial investments or evidence of enhanced economic growth.
As I said the other day, political parties are about the journey not the destination. Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism may purport to utopian end states but each is in their own ways unachievable but the attempt to achieve utopia keeps the struggle going.
In business, I'm always super sceptical of people who claim to have the answers. What I want are people who say "I don't know, but I know what we can do to find out". Because the biggest fault - whether in politics, investing or business - in an unwillingness to respond quickly to new information. We seek out that which confirms our beliefs (a trait that is extremely common on pb!), yet that attitude is one that leads almost inexorably to failure.
I don't think technocratic is the word I would use: because technocrats tend to tend to existing bureaucracies, rather than to experiment and tinker.
It is - however - an evidence led approach to policy making.
Basically pragmatic politics, which we could have had with the likes of Ken Clarke or Paddy Ashdown?
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
From what I understand from my aunt it is a "ringing" in the ears of some kind. But yes it seems to have no definitive form.
Unless you think it is psychosomatic?
The Kim Wilde song 'Water On Glass' is about Tinnitus.
Comments
Coincidentally she is responsible for me winning TWO 33/1 bets in the space of 12 hours.
Margaret Thatcher was interested in the rejuvenation and renaissance of Britain and its place in the world. She was also a practical politician.
Towards the end of her active political life she was openly advocating EU withdrawal and she'd certainly have no truck with cultural marxism.
https://www.wlwt.com/article/meet-abbigail-bugenske-ohios-first-dollar1-million-vax-a-million-winner/36556746#
Imo of course.
Wonder what her electorate will think.
If your point is that most people aren’t centrist (and therefore aren’t voting centrist parties) I also don’t agree.
I’d describe Labour, Lib Dem and the Tories as all economically centrist at this point in time. The Tories have moved “left” but not coherently so. In some other ways they have moved “right”. The main way they have moved is Boris-wards.
Unfit for office ! Bloody hell, something said by Cummings that I completely agree with.
It was one of the more tiresome fake grievances at the start of the pandemic, though it crops up in other areas, when people are like 'I don't remember voting for X'. Most jobs are not elected, but ones like her, advising the decision makers, who are elected, don't need to be.
What sense is there in suggesitng any position of authority, even those accountable to an elected person, should be elected? As that's what japes about their electorate suggest.
I think one of her big reservations about this government is it's chasing of popularity. She positively courted unpopularity early in a term in order to put in place the measures she thought were needed to bring longer-term prosperity and therefore electoral success.
Also, she would have been much warier of a) furlough, and b) inflationary pressures.
But it is difficult to guess what leaders from other eras who faced other priorities would have done. (Easier with Thatcher than most, mind.)
The man who once called Cameron a “girly swot”.
It’s laughable to think otherwise.
What Harries says goes.
Did you not get the memo?
What is known is that she was rightly proud of the single market and her part in making it happen, and EU expansion. These were her legacies that you Brexiteers trashed.
Our system of government would be that for any policy area (say law & order) we'd get together interested parties, design a series of trials with success and failure conditions, and then we'd try four or five different approaches in different areas, and see what had the best result.
Assuming it was a meaningful improvement, we'd then roll it out nationwide.
So, we'd make no assumptions at the beginning about what would actually be successful. Take law & order and the question of "what works" as far as prisons. We'd put together five or six different trials with different mixtures and types of punishment and deterrance and rehabilitation. We'd judge it based on cost, reduction in crimes committed in the area more generally, and on re-offending. And we'd see what works. And sure, it'd be a five year process, but at least we'd get real data to work with.
I don't know what would be the winning system. But I do know how to design a trial.
The same principle could be expanded to health, to education, etc. Now, people will fight over what constitutes success and failure (and that's fine), but everyone has to agree to be bound by reality.
2) On the subsidiary point, how do they know if there was no testing ?
The campaign, and the result, revealed a very deep divide.
Until Boris came along, every Conservative leader since Thatcher has managed to deliver slim majorities at best, and humiliating defeats at worst. It is such a novelty in my lifetime for the Tories to return to that level of electoral dominance that I don't have all that much respect for the supposedly upstanding plodders who gave us those decades of famine.
That doesn't mean that they don't see extreme right-wing elements popping up - the definition of the magpie is that it's not choosy. If being disgusting to asylum-seekers or ready to slash foreign aid is popular, the Government will do it like a shot. That makes them disturbing in a way that, say, John Major was not - you could go on holiday for two weeks and not come home to find Britain had done something like proposing to break international law.
News report from @Stodge - the man nearly on the spot.
Off to Chinatown with Mrs Stodge and friends - when we got into Gerrard Street we could see crowds and police in both Macclesfield Street and Gerrard Place. We thought it was some "celebrity" from Hong Kong or the Mainland and went off to the Lotus Garden for an excellent lunch.
By the time we left, the Police were still there but so were the anti-vax mob handing out leaflets and, enjoying the adulation of the masses (well, a couple of people anyway) was the great man himself, Piers Corbyn. I resisted the urge to genuflect before the Great Man as I'm sure we all would.
The crowd was mostly younger people - most with masks to be fair but no social distancing whatsoever.
We only read about what had happened on the way home - there was no sign of a "Vaccine Bus" when we arrived just after 1pm. As to whether one arrived while I was enjoying an excellent roast duck, I can't say because I was enjoying an excellent roast duck.
It does seem the Government may have realised there are more people here than they think - there is a statistically small but not insignificant group of people who live under the radar and have no official existence. That means they will never be contacted or vaccinated through the normal channels.
Other governments have had the courage to restore freedom. You can argue about the relative cost, but what you cannot argue is that the people of Florida, Texas and Sweden are much freer than we are.
Are there more cases and deaths? and few vaccinations? possibly.
But we should now, surely, get the choice to decide what we want.
The real difference, though, is that Mrs Thatcher valued process. And I'd argue that was why she was increasingly Eurosceptic towards the end: systems that work, with built in checks and balances, were to her more important than absolute policy ends. And it's why even if she'd agreed with the direction of policy travel in the EU, such as with the Single Market, she hated the process erosion that came with it.
She was a scientist who understood the dangers of exponential growth but also she didn't have an ego and allowed herself to be overruled by the cabinet. She read every briefing paper, stayed up late into the night making sure she fully understand everything. She was the original girly SWOT.
Can you imagine this cabinet of pygmies having the cojones to overrule Boris Johnson and him accepting that?
There's a reason why Thatcher's government is lauded for being the best in the world for dealing with the AIDS.
Bear in mind she was getting lambasted for focussing on helping 'poofters' and HIV/AIDS victims were swirling in a human cesspit of their own making".
Very honourable mention to Lord Fowler, who is a secular saint, not many politicians can say they helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
There have been several stories over the past year where advisers have encountered resistance from government, Boris was getting accused of it over being reluctant to lockdown Autumn last year.
Maybe it hasn't resisted enough, maybe it has resisted too much, whatever, the choice remains that of the elected.
It would kill off the partisan aspects of Party politics with the notion of competing programmes and "visions". Your idea of an empirical approach to policy making and execution, apart from sounding far too sensible, does at least have the possibility of arguing over what constitutes success or failure.
The problem is some policy areas, such as climate change or transport infrastructural improvements, can have windows of 20 or 30 years before repayment of initial investments or evidence of enhanced economic growth.
As I said the other day, political parties are about the journey not the destination. Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism may purport to utopian end states but each is in their own ways unachievable but the attempt to achieve utopia keeps the struggle going.
To describe as non centrist for example policies like Brexit or Remain or well founded arguments for regional independence like SNP, PC, SDLP is not sensible.
The astonishing feature of Lab/Con/LD politics in Britain is how alike and centrist they all are, and how few deep and profound as opposed to trivial and passing policy differences there are.
Brexit continues to be fascinating because it was the big exception. But the whole debate is well within centrist boundaries.
As of course is this government and the opposition.
- aboliton of capital punishment
- legalisation of abortion
- Race Relations Act
- legalisation of homosexuality
- covering our cities with hideous, shoddily built tower blocks
- planning decimalisation (implemented by Heath)
In foreign policy, there was the withdrawal from East of Suez and the decision not to help the Americans in Vietnam.
Some of those were mistakes, but together they're an impressive list.
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1397935470336741382
is where we are re: hospitalisations against the government's roadmap. I think.
If hospitalisations do as we expect, then no reason to fear any changes to June 21st. Assuming the government don't decide to suddenly change the metrics. They wouldn't do that, though, would they?
Last night’s IOW council meeting. The council on a knife edge after the elections in which the Tories, just, and against the trend, lose their majority.
The single Labour councillor doesn’t even turn up. And issues a statement that, whilst claiming to be ‘anti-Tory’, announces that he isn’t willing to be part of any alternative coalition to run the council.
So it falls to an ex UKIP guy - with more integrity than the skiving Labour fellow - to cast the critical vote in favour of the new Independent/all-party administration.
Then, when it comes to the allocation of committee places, it becomes clear that the Labour guy has excluded himself from the ‘alliance grouping’ and hence becomes an opposition councillor for proportionality purposes - the opposition now being 18 Tories and one Labour.
My contempt for the Labour Party has never been deeper.
Then moaned that the Greens and Lib Dems were in league with the Tories, which was utter bolleaux.
That's anti-Vaxxism, right there.
None of these statements are true.
TFFT
Boris decided to listen to the fuckwit thickos.
It has been said that the things which really damage you aren't those you're not sure about but those that you are sure of but are wrong about.
And last year the UK had this supposedly 'world leading' plan which turned out to be a long way from world leading in practice.
Even the phrase 'following the science' which was so often heard in the first weeks reeks of arrogance and complacency.
(Waitrose have owned the brand for 7 years).
It is/was essentially the only decent guide to eating in this country, at least outside of London.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/portugal/
Does anyone think the media will notice ?
1. Increase health budget by 4.3% - Yes
2. Hold a second referendum on Brexit - No
3. Raise minimum wage from £8.21 to £10 - No
4. Stop state pension age rises - No
5. Introduce a National Care Service - No
6. Bring forward net-zero target - No
7. Nationalise water, rail, mail - No
8. Scrap Universal Credit - No
9. Abolish private schools' charitable status - No
10. Free bus travel for under-25s - No
11. Give EU nationals the right to remain - No
12. Build 100,000 council homes a year - No
Is that a wholesale embrace of Corbynism? I make that one out of twelve. They also haven't stolen 10% of the equity of listed companies or put workers' representatives on boards, as Corbyn pledged to do.
Incidentally, Margaret Thatcher wasn't always a respecter of institutions. She abolished the London government because Londoners didn't vote the way she wanted them to.
And I’ve gone head to head with both MalcolmG and the late SeanT.
@paulwaugh
Feels very much like Covid passports are dead. @michaelgove sounding very downbeat, says Israel ditching its version cos of high vaccination rates.
Adds it was “always intended it would be for a time limited period…”in the UK and not iron-clad link to June 21 opening.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1397926300258430981?s=19
Much like the "don't close down travel" guidance is based on an over generalisation of how to deal with Bubonic Plague the Aerosol/Droplets guidance is based on a mis application of how to deal with TB.
It has been a massive fuck up, for years WHO guidance has been allowing respiratory diseases to spread because of this scientific misunderstanding.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
The only people anti Vietnam war were stoned with flowers in their hair, there was no rational argument against it.
Franchising is dead, thankfully. It was an embarrassment and a disgrace.
https://www.thebsa.org.uk/covid-19-is-making-tinnitus-worse-new-study/
I knew this because a friend of the family caught Covid-19 and said to my father that she was suffering from hearing problems.
Funny how in the capital of Texas, Austin, people are still expected to wear masks, and owners of any establishment are expected to ensure masks are worn and social distancing is maintained.
"Except as provided in 3.4, a person in control of a site must:
3.2.1. require each individual to wear a face covering except as provided in 2.1.2;
3.2.2. require at least three feet between groups of individuals;
3.2.3. post at least one face covering sign at or near each entrance; and
3.2.4. post, where information for workers is customarily posted, at least one sign in
English and at least one sign in Spanish that explains the requirement to remain at
least three feet apart and the requirement to wear a face covering. "
It, like all the cities in Texas, still has all the policies it had before.
As have the cities in Florida.
But your heroes have made proclamations. Which work for a few government buildings and some rural areas, so, yay! You can claim victory!
(Leaving aside the irony of Swedes having enjoyed less in the way of freedoms than Norwegians and Danes over the past year, of course. But the facts are far less important than proclaiming FREEDOM!! Meanwhile, I've had a lovely meal in a pub with some friends, despite the predicted impossibility of all of that by you, if I recall correctly . A nice rib-eye, as it happens)
You are easily the most reactionary poster on PB.
I don't think technocratic is the word I would use: because technocrats tend to tend to existing bureaucracies, rather than to experiment and tinker.
It is - however - an evidence led approach to policy making.
Unless you think it is psychosomatic?
Far better under TFL - an absolute disgrace before.