....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
Maybe his opponents should have put up a credible alternative at the last election then - rather than an enabler of racism who wanted to overturn the result of a referendum?
I too am beginning to question whether Labour made a mistake choosing the quiet forensic type. I wonder if they gave enough thought to their opponent?
If the brief had been to better an unscrupulous amoral chisseler rather than a simple incompetent I think they'd have gone for a brawler.
Forget the forensics go for the groin. I'm thinking Jess Phillips or Andy Burnham.
An interesting perspective, but isn't the ideal someone who can adapt to either?
At times, Starmer has in fact made an impact. Through much of 2020, he made decent progress and was rebuilding Labour's reputation for competence. I genuinely doubt a Jess Philips would have been able to do that.
His trouble has been adapting his game to the harder situation, where there has been a successful vaccine rollout and there is some optimism about which Johnson's boosterism is good at capturing. At that point, he needs a back-to-the-wall scrappiness, and campaigning ebullience to roll with the punches and get him and his party through it.
Post local elections is a case in point, where he turned a poor set of results into a crisis for Labour by going to ground. Why wasn't he out that weekend striding around Peterborough, Swansea, Manchester and Bath? I'd feel pretty pissed off if I was a Labour activist in those areas, and it means a negative narrative sets in. I mean, he's right to worry about what happened, but totally wrong to do it publicly.
Basically, he's one note - it's not a bad note, but doesn't make much of a tune. Philips is also one note, though, I fear - just a different note.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
I've met GWB; he was very relaxed and a good laugh when among military personnel. I've also met Blair in similar circumstances who distinctly wasn't but didn't try to fake it.
Compare with Johnson who recently waddled across the flight deck of the QE, pointed a palsied hand at a T23 and said, "That's a Type 32." You could tell every jack present was thinking "Civvie Shitc--t".
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
Isn't that a definitions thing again. If restaurants offering indoor dining, cinemas open, people coming round your home is "end of lockdown," then ours ended nearly two weeks ago.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
"Not so – the former MP was allowed to run for the mayoralty and now Starmer has another problem on his hands."
Yes, I agree -- it looks a stupid, tactical misstep. A completely unnecessary gamble by SKS -- which, if lost, provides still more ammunition for his enemies.
Why on earth was Tracy Brabin allowed to do this?
She should not have stood in GE 2019 in B&S if she wanted to go for the Mayoralty.
No doubt when elected in B&S, Brabin emphasised the honour of succeeding her friend & predecessor, the murdered Jo Cox.
But, that only lasted until a better opportunity came along.
People say this sort of thing and then in the same breath accuse party HQ of meddling, parachuting candidates, etc. In reality, the local party members decide on the candidate unless there is a decisive reason why someone is unsuitable, and there is no mechanism for the party to order Tracy Brabin to stand or not stand. Some meddling does happen at short-listing stage but that's not enough to prevent this kind of event.
Looking from the outside, it’s actually quite surprising that the party whips wouldn’t quietly discourage an MP in a marginal seat, from standing for election to another role that could lead to a tricky by-election.
Losing two unforced by-elections in as many months, both in ‘red wall’ areas, makes things somewhat awkward for the party and leadership.
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
Isn't that a definitions thing again. If restaurants offering indoor dining, cinemas open, people coming round your home is "end of lockdown," then ours ended nearly two weeks ago.
I don't really want to stop there, though.
Most of the UK are clearly no longer in lockdown, but have significant restrictions remaining that it is important to get rid of. Not sure why it would be controversial to say that the lockdown ended two weeks ago?
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
Maybe his opponents should have put up a credible alternative at the last election then - rather than an enabler of racism who wanted to overturn the result of a referendum?
I too am beginning to question whether Labour made a mistake choosing the quiet forensic type. I wonder if they gave enough thought to their opponent?
If the brief had been to better an unscrupulous amoral chisseler rather than a simple incompetent I think they'd have gone for a brawler.
Forget the forensics go for the groin. I'm thinking Jess Phillips or Andy Burnham.
There might be something in this. Starmer's big score over Johnson was to be competence but it's been blown out of the water (for now) by the vaccines. That his meaningful input to the thing which has saved his bacon was similar to mine - to just not get in the way - isn't a detail to trouble most voters.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
The purpose of damages in tort is to put the wronged person back into the position that they would have been in had the tort not been committed - as opposed to criminal law where punishment (aka “accountability”) is the aim. A Twitter account run by someone with clear mental health issues would likely not be taken as seriously (and thus cause less damage) as one run by a medical doctor with a significant online following.
"There is a famous, but sadly unsourced and therefore apocryphal, story of how Galloway once asked Donald [Dewar], “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me, Donald?” To which the inevitable answer came, “Because it saves time, George.” "
Telegraph
I heard that about some Victorian politician or other!
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
If one defames someone 'by accident' when 'not oneself', surely the right course is to apologise profusely. Not argue the toss.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
I would imagine you would have to provide cast iron diagnoses by health professionals for such a defence to even be considered, dunno if the good doctor included that as part of his evidence.
My brother has quite a severe mental illness which involves obsessing about celebrities and the like, I hope that would be taken into account in any celebrity related activity. Thankfully he hasn't shown the slightest interest in Twitter.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
The purpose of damages in tort is to put the wronged person back into the position that they would have been in had the tort not been committed - as opposed to criminal law where punishment (aka “accountability”) is the aim. A Twitter account run by someone with clear mental health issues would likely not be taken as seriously (and thus cause less damage) as one run by a medical doctor with a significant online following.
Although surely the best defence attempted was by the Skwawkbox, whose lawyer argued that they hadn’t libelled Turley as nobody was stupid enough to believe anything Walker wrote.
If after 11 years in Opposition Labour can't hold Batley & Spen, a seat with far more favourable demographics than Hartlepool and with the advantage of a unique sympathy candidate unavailable to them literally anywhere else in the country, then they are done as a political force for this Parliament and will be even heavier underdogs at the next election than they already were.
Even with the aid of Gorgeous George, I expect, sadly, a Labour hold.
I'd say the same about the Tories maintaining their 29% majority in Chesham and Amersham.
Is Gorgeous George running there as well? Or is it the LibDems this time?
"There is a famous, but sadly unsourced and therefore apocryphal, story of how Galloway once asked Donald [Dewar], “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me, Donald?” To which the inevitable answer came, “Because it saves time, George.” "
Telegraph
I heard that about some Victorian politician or other!
Similar to the one about, I think Stafford Cripps, of whom someone said, in Ernie Bevin's hearing that he, Crips, was his own worst enemy. Ernie was, allegedly, heard to growl 'Not while I'm alive, he aint!'
"Not so – the former MP was allowed to run for the mayoralty and now Starmer has another problem on his hands."
Yes, I agree -- it looks a stupid, tactical misstep. A completely unnecessary gamble by SKS -- which, if lost, provides still more ammunition for his enemies.
Why on earth was Tracy Brabin allowed to do this?
She should not have stood in GE 2019 in B&S if she wanted to go for the Mayoralty.
No doubt when elected in B&S, Brabin emphasised the honour of succeeding her friend & predecessor, the murdered Jo Cox.
But, that only lasted until a better opportunity came along.
Batley & Spen, and Hartlepool, are both symptoms. They are not the disease.
Avoiding having the by-elections would have avoided some bad headlines. But Labour would still have a huge problem with its offer to "traditional" Labour core vote in broadly working class, northern constituencies which voted Leave and more broadly feel neglected and let down by parts of the country they (very possibly wrongly) think have done well in recent decades at their expense.
That would be a huge problem for Labour even without any by-elections. Arguably, it isn't the worst thing for them that it's being brought to the fore and given a prominence they wouldn't if it was "just" a bad set of results in Sunderland local elections and so on, which anyway can more easily be brushed off as a product of a poorly run Council or three.
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
Isn't that a definitions thing again. If restaurants offering indoor dining, cinemas open, people coming round your home is "end of lockdown," then ours ended nearly two weeks ago.
I don't really want to stop there, though.
Most of the UK are clearly no longer in lockdown, but have significant restrictions remaining that it is important to get rid of. Not sure why it would be controversial to say that the lockdown ended two weeks ago?
It shouldn't be. The original comparator was obviously assuming that what the Netherlands were going to do on June 7th was an exit from lockdown while we were still in it (with the comparison of cases).
Technically, we exited "lockdown" on the 29th of March. We exited into a high restrictions environment (sort of going from Tier 4/lockdown to Tier 3). We've been progressing down the Tiers, into Tier 2 (ish) in April and Tier 1 (ish) two weeks ago.
There's an irritating conflation of the term "lockdown" with "restrictions" that keeps shifting as restrictions shift. It's understandable, but it makes any discussion of levels of restrictions impossible.
(I'm reminded of the Lockdown Sceptics insisting that if you counted back from the peak of deaths in the first wave and assumed exactly 20 days between the peak of infections and deaths, you could conclude that we got it under control without lockdown... but merely with closing all pubs, restaurants, schools, cinemas, theatres, gyms, leisure centres, sporting facilities, professional sport, and having everyone possible work from home and socially distance.
At which point, you're blinking and going ... well, um, okay?)
Politically, I have a feeling that the Govt are going to be back where they were on Dec 13th 2019 - the next election is theirs to lose, not Lab's to win.
With a few tadpoles swimming around that may turn into frogs, princes or black swans.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
"There is a famous, but sadly unsourced and therefore apocryphal, story of how Galloway once asked Donald [Dewar], “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me, Donald?” To which the inevitable answer came, “Because it saves time, George.” "
Telegraph
I heard that about some Victorian politician or other!
Similar to the one about, I think Stafford Cripps, of whom someone said, in Ernie Bevin's hearing that he, Crips, was his own worst enemy. Ernie was, allegedly, heard to growl 'Not while I'm alive, he aint!'
"There is a famous, but sadly unsourced and therefore apocryphal, story of how Galloway once asked Donald [Dewar], “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me, Donald?” To which the inevitable answer came, “Because it saves time, George.” "
Telegraph
I heard that about some Victorian politician or other!
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
If one defames someone 'by accident' when 'not oneself', surely the right course is to apologise profusely. Not argue the toss.
Getting in early with a fulsome apology will, at the very least, significantly reduce the damages payable. Some very bright people have no common sense whatsoever.
If after 11 years in Opposition Labour can't hold Batley & Spen, a seat with far more favourable demographics than Hartlepool and with the advantage of a unique sympathy candidate unavailable to them literally anywhere else in the country, then they are done as a political force for this Parliament and will be even heavier underdogs at the next election than they already were.
Even with the aid of Gorgeous George, I expect, sadly, a Labour hold.
I'd say the same about the Tories maintaining their 29% majority in Chesham and Amersham.
Then you would be wrong.
The Conservatives were defending a 29% majority in Ryedale in 1986 and lost it on a 19% swing:
A year later they won a landslide general election victory.
Then there's Crosby, Portsmouth South, Eastbourne, Ribble Valley and no doubt others.
Well indeed - I'm afraid Boris drives the otherwise sane utterly deluded...
Indeed he does, and the fanbois are out early today, is there a full moon?
The garden won't dig itself.
PB is truly an ecumenical forum - it even includes people who can't stand polling data and log off at the sight of political opinions other than their own...
Some posters are not funded by Conservative Party Central Office, and we genuinely have other things to do.
Toodle Pip!
Yes, of course, the only opposition to your nonsense must come from people paid to write it. If any party were funding you, I think they'd be in their rights to demand an immediate refund, if not damages on top...
If anyone is paying you, they should demand a discount given the number of contractions you use.
Look, the contract is specifically drawn up as 'pence per word', and in this economy we all have to do what we can to keep our heads above water...
If it's 'pence per word', there's another PB Tory on here who posts rather frequently and at length who must by now be a multi-millionaire, surely.
At (say) a penny a word would have banked a cool half mill just from "sclerotic".
"There is a famous, but sadly unsourced and therefore apocryphal, story of how Galloway once asked Donald [Dewar], “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me, Donald?” To which the inevitable answer came, “Because it saves time, George.” "
Telegraph
I heard that about some Victorian politician or other!
Similar to the one about, I think Stafford Cripps, of whom someone said, in Ernie Bevin's hearing that he, Crips, was his own worst enemy. Ernie was, allegedly, heard to growl 'Not while I'm alive, he aint!'
A shiver looking for a spine to run up applied to a front bench of some hue or other is one of the best en masse political put downs.
"There is a famous, but sadly unsourced and therefore apocryphal, story of how Galloway once asked Donald [Dewar], “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me, Donald?” To which the inevitable answer came, “Because it saves time, George.” "
Telegraph
I heard that about some Victorian politician or other!
Similar to the one about, I think Stafford Cripps, of whom someone said, in Ernie Bevin's hearing that he, Crips, was his own worst enemy. Ernie was, allegedly, heard to growl 'Not while I'm alive, he aint!'
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I am very uneasy how the media seem to have been captivated by the zero covid, anti government brigade and that they are almost subservient to their views
Just when we need a vigorous and serious media they are failing the country big time and their narrative needs to be challenged
I think it was said on the last thread that if the country is not opened on the 21st June there will we be widespread anger and I do agree, but I think it is more likely that it will be ignored as people decide they are not going to be dictated to by a select few of zero covid zealots who have no care on the economic damage or of course the mental health and delayed urgent medical attention required by so many of our fellow citizens
I do believe we should be provided with far more forensic detail on hospitalisation including the vaccine state of those in hospital, the severity of their condition, and just how many are succumbing to covid and the exact state of the NHS
Yesterday, I listened to Sturgeon and when she was asked to provide these details she prevaricated (which she is a world champion at) and went around the question and it was quite apparent she did not want to reveal how many in Scotland's hospital were unvaccinated or had had their first dose.
Furthermore, I listened to the Welsh news last night which reported there were 8 mile queues accessing North Wales (and they are so welcome) and I was almost 'open mouthed' when Drakeford said that of course everyone coming into Wales must have had a covid test and continue having them whilst here.
Either he was extreme naivety or he is just divorced from reality
I believe we should open on the 21st June, am content for Boris to leave the decision until the 14th, despite again the crescendo of demands from our 'out of touch' media for an answer now, and I have every intention of doing my own thing but with common sense no matter what the media, covid apparatchiks or anyone else says to the contrary
It's not just zero covid types now who are repeatedly on the media, if by that you mean those who want eradication.
We are now seeing what feels like wall-to-wall interviews with those scientists who seem to want us in a position where no one dies of covid or is in hospital. They focus on that at all costs, ignoring the wider health issues that you mention never mind the economy and small businesses. Yes, in an ideal world no one would die of covid. But if the price for that is loads of other people die from undetected cancer then I would say you have lost a sense of balance and proportion.
Absolutely and we are on the same page
Classic FM (who I think get their news from LBC) just dropped a clanger as well. Their leading story described Christina Pagel, a zero Covid idiot who wants to keep us locked down until at least the end of August, as ‘a member of SAGE.’ Well, she isn’t. She’s a member of Independent SAGE, who are a pressure group (and AIUI she’s a mathematician not an epidemiologist anyway). That, to me, is deliberate dishonesty, or so negligent it might as well be dishonesty.
Yes, we have some nuts who want to keep us locked down for ever, like Pagel, or Contrarian (who is patently refusing the vaccine so he can be proved right on endless restrictions). But they can and should be ignored.
Bottom line is, if schools can be reopened without everything descending into chaos, then there’s no reason to keep anything else under control. If there were likely to be a steep rise in hospitalisations and deaths from reopening, given we’ve been open for six consecutive weeks it would have happened by now. It was an extremely brave call to reopen them on the 8th March and although it was plainly made for all the wrong reasons it has turned out to be the right decision.
Therefore, the argument is to bring forward the ending of restrictions, not put it back.
And an even better argument is that everyone is starting to ignore them anyway and attempting to keep imposing them will merely bring the law into disrepute.
In fact, the only good argument for trying to extend is that I think Harper and Baker would actually be able to topple Johnson and put a half-decent PM in.
How would a journalist get confused between the game of a group of scientists who advise the government, and a cranky pressure group with a similar name?
Well, for starters the people actually advising the government aren’t constantly trying to get themselves on the news!
Hopefully the “Independent SAGE” cranks will be lining up for a live half-hour interview with Andrew Neil on GB news in a couple of weeks’ time...
IMHO there’s a fundamental issue with “Independent SAGE” calling themselves that. They are trying to pass themselves off as something they are not while also undermining the independence of the original. In business it would be illegal
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERRY occasion is the minimum.
You mean, voting more than once on every occasion is the desired target? It's certainly heading that way, at least in the sense of cancelling your opponents' voters. I look forward to Oxford regaining its University seat, and the property qualification returning ...
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention.
The LibDems.
Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously.
Now, not a mention.
Total rubbish.
Even at their peak, there were frequently by-elections where the Lib Dems effectively passed and weren't a factor.
This sort of one is a classic case, and would have been even if the LDs were at 20% in the polls. A seat where they've never been higher than third, in a contest where they are throwing everything at a better prospect.
I'm afraid PB is increasingly dominated by people like Richard, with no interest in having a serious, informed discussion.
LOL
A truly pathetic attempt to rewrite history.
Rotherham 1994, LibDems start in third, gain 17%, finish second
Politically, I have a feeling that the Govt are going to be back where they were on Dec 13th 2019 - the next election is theirs to lose, not Lab's to win.
With a few tadpoles swimming around that may turn into frogs, princes or black swans.
Over to Rishi...
I agree somewhat, but also it's very early to predict. Too many "events" could occur. I also agree that Governments lose elections, oppositions then only when them afterwards.
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
If one defames someone 'by accident' when 'not oneself', surely the right course is to apologise profusely. Not argue the toss.
Getting in early with a fulsome apology will, at the very least, significantly reduce the damages payable. Some very bright people have no common sense whatsoever.
On the other hand, it's evidence that they [edit: i speak purely generically] are not in their right minds. Tricky.
The presence of Galloway at B&S taking votes from Labour is balanced by Halloran (who elevates flag shagging to a level that would shame any tory mp) chipping away at the smoothbrain end of the tory vote.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
And as I voted for Blair twice, but always conservative before and since maybe I am a hybrid
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
I don’t think he’s quite got it right yet. The very intelligent part, yes, but he’s still projecting the boring lawyer image.
If after 11 years in Opposition Labour can't hold Batley & Spen, a seat with far more favourable demographics than Hartlepool and with the advantage of a unique sympathy candidate unavailable to them literally anywhere else in the country, then they are done as a political force for this Parliament and will be even heavier underdogs at the next election than they already were.
Even with the aid of Gorgeous George, I expect, sadly, a Labour hold.
I'd say the same about the Tories maintaining their 29% majority in Chesham and Amersham.
Then you would be wrong.
The Conservatives were defending a 29% majority in Ryedale in 1986 and lost it on a 19% swing:
A year later they won a landslide general election victory.
Then there's Crosby, Portsmouth South, Eastbourne, Ribble Valley and no doubt others.
Well indeed - I'm afraid Boris drives the otherwise sane utterly deluded...
Indeed he does, and the fanbois are out early today, is there a full moon?
The garden won't dig itself.
PB is truly an ecumenical forum - it even includes people who can't stand polling data and log off at the sight of political opinions other than their own...
Some posters are not funded by Conservative Party Central Office, and we genuinely have other things to do.
Toodle Pip!
Yes, of course, the only opposition to your nonsense must come from people paid to write it. If any party were funding you, I think they'd be in their rights to demand an immediate refund, if not damages on top...
If anyone is paying you, they should demand a discount given the number of contractions you use.
Look, the contract is specifically drawn up as 'pence per word', and in this economy we all have to do what we can to keep our heads above water...
If it's 'pence per word', there's another PB Tory on here who posts rather frequently and at length who must by now be a multi-millionaire, surely.
At (say) a penny a word would have banked a cool half mill just from "sclerotic".
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
I don’t think he’s quite got it right yet. The very intelligent part, yes, but he’s still projecting the boring lawyer image.
Oh, sorry, were you not talking about Starmer?
He's getting practice with the buffoonery though.
That trip to the pub during the local elections could have been set to the Benny Hill theme tune.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERRY occasion is the minimum.
You mean, voting more than once on every occasion is the desired target? It's certainly heading that way, at least in the sense of cancelling your opponents' voters. I look forward to Oxford regaining its University seat, and the property qualification returning ...
Oh yes! Combined Scottish Universities (a three member seat for Edinburgh,Glasgow and St Andrews grads until 1950), Cambridge and Dublin should come back also. For some reason Combined English Unis (all the universities save O&C) got only 2 seats compared to Combined Scottish Universities.
I am very uneasy how the media seem to have been captivated by the zero covid, anti government brigade and that they are almost subservient to their views
Just when we need a vigorous and serious media they are failing the country big time and their narrative needs to be challenged
I think it was said on the last thread that if the country is not opened on the 21st June there will we be widespread anger and I do agree, but I think it is more likely that it will be ignored as people decide they are not going to be dictated to by a select few of zero covid zealots who have no care on the economic damage or of course the mental health and delayed urgent medical attention required by so many of our fellow citizens
I do believe we should be provided with far more forensic detail on hospitalisation including the vaccine state of those in hospital, the severity of their condition, and just how many are succumbing to covid and the exact state of the NHS
Yesterday, I listened to Sturgeon and when she was asked to provide these details she prevaricated (which she is a world champion at) and went around the question and it was quite apparent she did not want to reveal how many in Scotland's hospital were unvaccinated or had had their first dose.
Furthermore, I listened to the Welsh news last night which reported there were 8 mile queues accessing North Wales (and they are so welcome) and I was almost 'open mouthed' when Drakeford said that of course everyone coming into Wales must have had a covid test and continue having them whilst here.
Either he was extreme naivety or he is just divorced from reality
I believe we should open on the 21st June, am content for Boris to leave the decision until the 14th, despite again the crescendo of demands from our 'out of touch' media for an answer now, and I have every intention of doing my own thing but with common sense no matter what the media, covid apparatchiks or anyone else says to the contrary
It's not just zero covid types now who are repeatedly on the media, if by that you mean those who want eradication.
We are now seeing what feels like wall-to-wall interviews with those scientists who seem to want us in a position where no one dies of covid or is in hospital. They focus on that at all costs, ignoring the wider health issues that you mention never mind the economy and small businesses. Yes, in an ideal world no one would die of covid. But if the price for that is loads of other people die from undetected cancer then I would say you have lost a sense of balance and proportion.
Absolutely and we are on the same page
Classic FM (who I think get their news from LBC) just dropped a clanger as well. Their leading story described Christina Pagel, a zero Covid idiot who wants to keep us locked down until at least the end of August, as ‘a member of SAGE.’ Well, she isn’t. She’s a member of Independent SAGE, who are a pressure group (and AIUI she’s a mathematician not an epidemiologist anyway). That, to me, is deliberate dishonesty, or so negligent it might as well be dishonesty.
Yes, we have some nuts who want to keep us locked down for ever, like Pagel, or Contrarian (who is patently refusing the vaccine so he can be proved right on endless restrictions). But they can and should be ignored.
Bottom line is, if schools can be reopened without everything descending into chaos, then there’s no reason to keep anything else under control. If there were likely to be a steep rise in hospitalisations and deaths from reopening, given we’ve been open for six consecutive weeks it would have happened by now. It was an extremely brave call to reopen them on the 8th March and although it was plainly made for all the wrong reasons it has turned out to be the right decision.
Therefore, the argument is to bring forward the ending of restrictions, not put it back.
And an even better argument is that everyone is starting to ignore them anyway and attempting to keep imposing them will merely bring the law into disrepute.
In fact, the only good argument for trying to extend is that I think Harper and Baker would actually be able to topple Johnson and put a half-decent PM in.
How would a journalist get confused between the game of a group of scientists who advise the government, and a cranky pressure group with a similar name?
Well, for starters the people actually advising the government aren’t constantly trying to get themselves on the news!
Hopefully the “Independent SAGE” cranks will be lining up for a live half-hour interview with Andrew Neil on GB news in a couple of weeks’ time...
IMHO there’s a fundamental issue with “Independent SAGE” calling themselves that. They are trying to pass themselves off as something they are not while also undermining the independence of the original. In business it would be illegal
Been pondering this one myself - it really is a disgrace that media and social media companies have decided it is their job to arbitrate on facts and de-platform views they dislike, but have basically promoted a policital pressure group with a completely misleading name.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
If one defames someone 'by accident' when 'not oneself', surely the right course is to apologise profusely. Not argue the toss.
When Foster’s lawyer threatened legal action and asked him to delete the tweet, his response was “LOL”.
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
I don’t think he’s quite got it right yet. The very intelligent part, yes, but he’s still projecting the boring lawyer image.
Oh, sorry, were you not talking about Starmer?
He's getting practice with the buffoonery though.
That trip to the pub during the local elections could have been set to the Benny Hill theme tune.
So you actually were talking about a buffoon with a degree from Oxbridge who comes across as completely stupid.
You see though, I don’t agree there either. I really don’t think Richard Burgon is acting when he behaves like an idiot.
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
A number of EU countries are being quite foolish imo.
In the Netherlands they have 70% of people with no active vaccine protection, and as you say a covid case rate of about 200.
For a comparator, that is where we were on vaccines in mid-March.
But their death figures are far better overall.
Alternatively they've realised that vaccinating the vulnerable is the right thing to do before lifting lockdown while continuing to vaccinate - and hiding behind our sofas until every single person has been double vaccinated is redundant.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
And as I voted for Blair twice, but always conservative before and since maybe I am a hybrid
My fellow Essex man HYUFD has doubted your true Conservative convictions on several occasions. This will convince him that that conviction is doubtful at best.
I am very uneasy how the media seem to have been captivated by the zero covid, anti government brigade and that they are almost subservient to their views
Just when we need a vigorous and serious media they are failing the country big time and their narrative needs to be challenged
I think it was said on the last thread that if the country is not opened on the 21st June there will we be widespread anger and I do agree, but I think it is more likely that it will be ignored as people decide they are not going to be dictated to by a select few of zero covid zealots who have no care on the economic damage or of course the mental health and delayed urgent medical attention required by so many of our fellow citizens
I do believe we should be provided with far more forensic detail on hospitalisation including the vaccine state of those in hospital, the severity of their condition, and just how many are succumbing to covid and the exact state of the NHS
Yesterday, I listened to Sturgeon and when she was asked to provide these details she prevaricated (which she is a world champion at) and went around the question and it was quite apparent she did not want to reveal how many in Scotland's hospital were unvaccinated or had had their first dose.
Furthermore, I listened to the Welsh news last night which reported there were 8 mile queues accessing North Wales (and they are so welcome) and I was almost 'open mouthed' when Drakeford said that of course everyone coming into Wales must have had a covid test and continue having them whilst here.
Either he was extreme naivety or he is just divorced from reality
I believe we should open on the 21st June, am content for Boris to leave the decision until the 14th, despite again the crescendo of demands from our 'out of touch' media for an answer now, and I have every intention of doing my own thing but with common sense no matter what the media, covid apparatchiks or anyone else says to the contrary
It's not just zero covid types now who are repeatedly on the media, if by that you mean those who want eradication.
We are now seeing what feels like wall-to-wall interviews with those scientists who seem to want us in a position where no one dies of covid or is in hospital. They focus on that at all costs, ignoring the wider health issues that you mention never mind the economy and small businesses. Yes, in an ideal world no one would die of covid. But if the price for that is loads of other people die from undetected cancer then I would say you have lost a sense of balance and proportion.
Absolutely and we are on the same page
Classic FM (who I think get their news from LBC) just dropped a clanger as well. Their leading story described Christina Pagel, a zero Covid idiot who wants to keep us locked down until at least the end of August, as ‘a member of SAGE.’ Well, she isn’t. She’s a member of Independent SAGE, who are a pressure group (and AIUI she’s a mathematician not an epidemiologist anyway). That, to me, is deliberate dishonesty, or so negligent it might as well be dishonesty.
Yes, we have some nuts who want to keep us locked down for ever, like Pagel, or Contrarian (who is patently refusing the vaccine so he can be proved right on endless restrictions). But they can and should be ignored.
Bottom line is, if schools can be reopened without everything descending into chaos, then there’s no reason to keep anything else under control. If there were likely to be a steep rise in hospitalisations and deaths from reopening, given we’ve been open for six consecutive weeks it would have happened by now. It was an extremely brave call to reopen them on the 8th March and although it was plainly made for all the wrong reasons it has turned out to be the right decision.
Therefore, the argument is to bring forward the ending of restrictions, not put it back.
And an even better argument is that everyone is starting to ignore them anyway and attempting to keep imposing them will merely bring the law into disrepute.
In fact, the only good argument for trying to extend is that I think Harper and Baker would actually be able to topple Johnson and put a half-decent PM in.
How would a journalist get confused between the game of a group of scientists who advise the government, and a cranky pressure group with a similar name?
Well, for starters the people actually advising the government aren’t constantly trying to get themselves on the news!
Hopefully the “Independent SAGE” cranks will be lining up for a live half-hour interview with Andrew Neil on GB news in a couple of weeks’ time...
IMHO there’s a fundamental issue with “Independent SAGE” calling themselves that. They are trying to pass themselves off as something they are not while also undermining the independence of the original. In business it would be illegal
Oh, very much so.
Sadly, when journalists operate in an environment where they need two opposing guests shouting across other for seven minutes, even during a global pandemic, their false credibility works perfectly.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
I did.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
If one defames someone 'by accident' when 'not oneself', surely the right course is to apologise profusely. Not argue the toss.
When Foster’s lawyer threatened legal action and asked him to delete the tweet, his response was “LOL”.
In such a case one really should take the situation seriously. Unless sound medical and or psychiatric support is available.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
And as I voted for Blair twice, but always conservative before and since maybe I am a hybrid
My fellow Essex man HYUFD has doubted your true Conservative convictions on several occasions. This will convince him that that conviction is doubtful at best.
Yes he is aware of it and I am not a true blue but to be honest I do not share many of his views including sending tanks to Scotland and it does show there are more sensible conservatives in the party
This man is a miracle worker, he's managed to get a good deal of non NI, non Unionist people to be on Arlene's side. Combined with her more or less telling the DUP to girfuy, her rehabilitation is almost complete.
On 28 January 2020 the First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster issued libel proceedings against me over a tweet I published in December 2019 which the High Court has held as defamatory. I gave evidence to the court about my mental health and personal circumstances over the last year but was ordered to pay libel damages and full indemnity legal costs incurred by her, which are substantial. I am considering an appeal and I am seeking to raise funds to help me to fight what is a most unfair situation
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
If one defames someone 'by accident' when 'not oneself', surely the right course is to apologise profusely. Not argue the toss.
When Foster’s lawyer threatened legal action and asked him to delete the tweet, his response was “LOL”.
He is reminiscent of Chris Williamson’s infamous claim the reason he was being called a racist was because the Israelis were out to get him in his attitude (and not in a good way).
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
Mmm. Well that's not my def. For me, a person who voted Tory at the last election is a Tory. So there are, as we speak and ignoring deaths, 13,966,454 of the critters. This is not to label and lump. Each one of them is a unique individual with their own bespoke reasons for being what they are. Each one of them has the chance next time to become something different if they so wish. And god I do hope a couple of million of them take it.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERRY occasion is the minimum.
You mean, voting more than once on every occasion is the desired target? It's certainly heading that way, at least in the sense of cancelling your opponents' voters. I look forward to Oxford regaining its University seat, and the property qualification returning ...
Oh yes! Combined Scottish Universities (a three member seat for Edinburgh,Glasgow and St Andrews grads until 1950), Cambridge and Dublin should come back also. For some reason Combined English Unis (all the universities save O&C) got only 2 seats compared to Combined Scottish Universities.
I think you missed Aberdeen University from the Combined Scottish. Also in England, apart from O+C, there weren't as many universities as nowadays with graduates before 1950.
(I am a proud Aberdeen graduate btw, but I was not around pre 1950s)
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
I don’t think he’s quite got it right yet. The very intelligent part, yes, but he’s still projecting the boring lawyer image.
Oh, sorry, were you not talking about Starmer?
He's getting practice with the buffoonery though.
That trip to the pub during the local elections could have been set to the Benny Hill theme tune.
And did you see him boxing a punch bag, it was just cringeworthy
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
I don’t think he’s quite got it right yet. The very intelligent part, yes, but he’s still projecting the boring lawyer image.
Oh, sorry, were you not talking about Starmer?
He's getting practice with the buffoonery though.
That trip to the pub during the local elections could have been set to the Benny Hill theme tune.
And did you see him boxing a punch bag, it was just cringeworthy
Two strikes, he's got to be careful that there's not a third.
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
A number of EU countries are being quite foolish imo.
In the Netherlands they have 70% of people with no active vaccine protection, and as you say a covid case rate of about 200.
For a comparator, that is where we were on vaccines in mid-March.
But their death figures are far better overall.
Alternatively they've realised that vaccinating the vulnerable is the right thing to do before lifting lockdown while continuing to vaccinate - and hiding behind our sofas until every single person has been double vaccinated is redundant.
Up to a point Lord Copper. Spain is now doing well on vaccines - starting on the under 50s. However, there are many millions older than that, myself includes who don't get a second jab until nearly August and vast numbers of youngsters who won't be vaxed before July. However they are about to allow Brits in without evidence of a negative test or a vaccine. I think that is reckless - the Indian variant is already in the country and in places the data is starting to tick up again.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERRY occasion is the minimum.
You mean, voting more than once on every occasion is the desired target? It's certainly heading that way, at least in the sense of cancelling your opponents' voters. I look forward to Oxford regaining its University seat, and the property qualification returning ...
Oh yes! Combined Scottish Universities (a three member seat for Edinburgh,Glasgow and St Andrews grads until 1950), Cambridge and Dublin should come back also. For some reason Combined English Unis (all the universities save O&C) got only 2 seats compared to Combined Scottish Universities.
I think you missed Aberdeen University from the Combined Scottish. Also in England, apart from O+C, there weren't as many universities with graduates before 1950.
(I am a proud Aberdeen graduate btw, but I was not around pre 1950s)
Apologies for that. Fair point re English Universities but there were more than 4 others by 1950, London, Manchester, Durham, Birmingham, Liverpool...
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERRY occasion is the minimum.
You mean, voting more than once on every occasion is the desired target? It's certainly heading that way, at least in the sense of cancelling your opponents' voters. I look forward to Oxford regaining its University seat, and the property qualification returning ...
Oh yes! Combined Scottish Universities (a three member seat for Edinburgh,Glasgow and St Andrews grads until 1950), Cambridge and Dublin should come back also. For some reason Combined English Unis (all the universities save O&C) got only 2 seats compared to Combined Scottish Universities.
I think you missed Aberdeen University from the Combined Scottish. Also in England, apart from O+C, there weren't as many universities with graduates before 1950.
(I am a proud Aberdeen graduate btw, but I was not around pre 1950s)
Apologies for that. Fair point re English Universities but there were more than 4 others by 1950, London, Manchester, Durham, Birmingham, Liverpool...
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERRY occasion is the minimum.
You mean, voting more than once on every occasion is the desired target? It's certainly heading that way, at least in the sense of cancelling your opponents' voters. I look forward to Oxford regaining its University seat, and the property qualification returning ...
Oh yes! Combined Scottish Universities (a three member seat for Edinburgh,Glasgow and St Andrews grads until 1950), Cambridge and Dublin should come back also. For some reason Combined English Unis (all the universities save O&C) got only 2 seats compared to Combined Scottish Universities.
I think you missed Aberdeen University from the Combined Scottish. Also in England, apart from O+C, there weren't as many universities as nowadays with graduates before 1950.
(I am a proud Aberdeen graduate btw, but I was not around pre 1950s)
Ha, roughly what period? Saw some fantastic bands in AU Union and had my head kicked in in the Dungeon a couple of times, all a distant memory unfortunately (even the kickings). 40p a pint!
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
Mmm. Well that's not my def. For me, a person who voted Tory at the last election is a Tory. So there are, as we speak and ignoring deaths, 13,966,454 of the critters. This is not to label and lump. Each one of them is a unique individual with their own bespoke reasons for being what they are. Each one of them has the chance next time to become something different if they so wish. And god I do hope a couple of million of them take it.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
I did.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
Phew. Thank goodness for that. I'd have had to adjust the very innards of my core model if you hadn't voted Tory. Which makes you a Tory right now. I can't be doing with all that 'axis' stuff. It's interesting but there's too much wriggle room with it.
If after 11 years in Opposition Labour can't hold Batley & Spen, a seat with far more favourable demographics than Hartlepool and with the advantage of a unique sympathy candidate unavailable to them literally anywhere else in the country, then they are done as a political force for this Parliament and will be even heavier underdogs at the next election than they already were.
Even with the aid of Gorgeous George, I expect, sadly, a Labour hold.
I'd say the same about the Tories maintaining their 29% majority in Chesham and Amersham.
Is Gorgeous George running there as well? Or is it the LibDems this time?
Good morning Charles.
The candidates for C&A are:
Green Carolyne Culver Rejoin EU Brendan Donnelly Conservative Peter Fleet Liberal Democrats Sarah Green Breakthrough Party Carla Gregory Freedom Alliance Adrian Oliver Labour Natasa Pantelic Reform UK Alex Wilson
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
Mmm. Well that's not my def. For me, a person who voted Tory at the last election is a Tory. So there are, as we speak and ignoring deaths, 13,966,454 of the critters. This is not to label and lump. Each one of them is a unique individual with their own bespoke reasons for being what they are. Each one of them has the chance next time to become something different if they so wish. And god I do hope a couple of million of them take it.
You really do mean you want 2 million more to see the light and vote for Boris !!!!!!!!
And my wife would agree that I am quite unique after having lived with me for 57 plus years
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
A number of EU countries are being quite foolish imo.
In the Netherlands they have 70% of people with no active vaccine protection, and as you say a covid case rate of about 200.
For a comparator, that is where we were on vaccines in mid-March.
But their death figures are far better overall.
Alternatively they've realised that vaccinating the vulnerable is the right thing to do before lifting lockdown while continuing to vaccinate - and hiding behind our sofas until every single person has been double vaccinated is redundant.
Up to a point Lord Copper. Spain is now doing well on vaccines - starting on the under 50s. However, there are many millions older than that, myself includes who don't get a second jab until nearly August and vast numbers of youngsters who won't be vaxed before July. However they are about to allow Brits in without evidence of a negative test or a vaccine. I think that is reckless - the Indian variant is already in the country and in places the data is starting to tick up again.
Yes, certain parts of Europe seem more determined to have a summer holiday season, than to prevent the next wave of the virus.
One thing the scientists mostly miss, is that people on holiday do not behave in the same way socially as people in their home town. They act in ways designed to spread the virus around much more quickly.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
I did.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
Phew. Thank goodness for that. I'd have had to adjust the very innards of my core model if you hadn't voted Tory. Which makes you a Tory right now. I can't be doing with all that 'axis' stuff. It's interesting but there's too much wriggle room with it.
Maybe if you want fewer Tories, then the Labour Party should take a long hard look at itself and ask the question "why are our former voters voting Tory instead".
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
Maybe his opponents should have put up a credible alternative at the last election then - rather than an enabler of racism who wanted to overturn the result of a referendum?
I too am beginning to question whether Labour made a mistake choosing the quiet forensic type. I wonder if they gave enough thought to their opponent?
If the brief had been to better an unscrupulous amoral chisseler rather than a simple incompetent I think they'd have gone for a brawler.
Forget the forensics go for the groin. I'm thinking Jess Phillips or Andy Burnham.
There might be something in this. Starmer's big score over Johnson was to be competence but it's been blown out of the water (for now) by the vaccines. That his meaningful input to the thing which has saved his bacon was similar to mine - to just not get in the way - isn't a detail to trouble most voters.
Starmer's presumed forensic legal skills could be made for this moment. Seven hours of testimony from Dominic Cummings to be sifted and compared with evidence from Matt Hancock and Boris. Next PMQs could be interesting.
Or yet another damp squib if Starmer yet again asks key questions but leaves the conclusions hanging in the air.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
Mmm. Well that's not my def. For me, a person who voted Tory at the last election is a Tory. So there are, as we speak and ignoring deaths, 13,966,454 of the critters. This is not to label and lump. Each one of them is a unique individual with their own bespoke reasons for being what they are. Each one of them has the chance next time to become something different if they so wish. And god I do hope a couple of million of them take it.
Do local elections wipe away the stain?
I'd love to say yes, but not quite. Best I can do is to set up a new category for this - recovering Tory.
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
Women in politics are unlikely to play dumb because it plays into a stereotype they have to fight hard against.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
Mmm. Well that's not my def. For me, a person who voted Tory at the last election is a Tory. So there are, as we speak and ignoring deaths, 13,966,454 of the critters. This is not to label and lump. Each one of them is a unique individual with their own bespoke reasons for being what they are. Each one of them has the chance next time to become something different if they so wish. And god I do hope a couple of million of them take it.
You really do mean you want 2 million more to see the light and vote for Boris !!!!!!!!
And my wife would agree that I am quite unique after having lived with me for 57 plus years
How does she know? Or shouldn't we ask that question?
"Not so – the former MP was allowed to run for the mayoralty and now Starmer has another problem on his hands."
Yes, I agree -- it looks a stupid, tactical misstep. A completely unnecessary gamble by SKS -- which, if lost, provides still more ammunition for his enemies.
Why on earth was Tracy Brabin allowed to do this?
She should not have stood in GE 2019 in B&S if she wanted to go for the Mayoralty.
No doubt when elected in B&S, Brabin emphasised the honour of succeeding her friend & predecessor, the murdered Jo Cox.
But, that only lasted until a better opportunity came along.
People say this sort of thing and then in the same breath accuse party HQ of meddling, parachuting candidates, etc. In reality, the local party members decide on the candidate unless there is a decisive reason why someone is unsuitable, and there is no mechanism for the party to order Tracy Brabin to stand or not stand. Some meddling does happen at short-listing stage but that's not enough to prevent this kind of event.
Looking from the outside, it’s actually quite surprising that the party whips wouldn’t quietly discourage an MP in a marginal seat, from standing for election to another role that could lead to a tricky by-election.
Losing two unforced by-elections in as many months, both in ‘red wall’ areas, makes things somewhat awkward for the party and leadership.
You mean...like the local Labour party was given a free hand in Hartlepool to select their own candidate.....
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
I did.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
Phew. Thank goodness for that. I'd have had to adjust the very innards of my core model if you hadn't voted Tory. Which makes you a Tory right now. I can't be doing with all that 'axis' stuff. It's interesting but there's too much wriggle room with it.
They voted for X therefore they are X is a dangerous view IMO as it ignores why they voted for X and so why they might stop voting for X.
There were plenty of people who had voted Labour or LibDem in 2010 but then they stopped doing so.
Also reminiscent of how Conservative politicians believed that 'their voters' would still vote for them in 1997 because they had in 1992.
Interestingly the extent to which people have followed the Cummings story does not appear to have impacted their attitude to vaccine programme::
Q1.2. Generally speaking, do you think the Government has handled the coronavirus vaccination programme...? (Net Well) Not at all: +44 Somewhat: +59 Closely: +43
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
I did.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
Phew. Thank goodness for that. I'd have had to adjust the very innards of my core model if you hadn't voted Tory. Which makes you a Tory right now. I can't be doing with all that 'axis' stuff. It's interesting but there's too much wriggle room with it.
Maybe if you want fewer Tories, then the Labour Party should take a long hard look at itself and ask the question "why are our former voters voting Tory instead".
Or you can just think "Tories, Tories everwhere!"
The very last thing we want to be doing is having a long hard look at ourselves. That's vain and self-indulgent. We need to raise our gaze and look outwards. At the voters. Not just look at them either. We must SEE them. It won't be easy since the temptation is to look away. But you can't do that in politics if you want to gain power. It's a rough old trade and you've got to get right in there.
Museums, theaters, cinemas and a wide range of other venues can reopen across The Netherlands from June 5, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Friday.
"This is actually the end of the lockdown," he told a news conference.
Restaurants will be allowed to offer indoor dining again and opening hours can be extended until 10pm. The Dutch will also be allowed to invite up to four people to their homes instead of two.
New cases /million 7 day average : vaccinations/100 Netherlands: 182, : 51.6 UK: 42 : 92.3.....
A number of EU countries are being quite foolish imo.
In the Netherlands they have 70% of people with no active vaccine protection, and as you say a covid case rate of about 200.
For a comparator, that is where we were on vaccines in mid-March.
But their death figures are far better overall.
Alternatively they've realised that vaccinating the vulnerable is the right thing to do before lifting lockdown while continuing to vaccinate - and hiding behind our sofas until every single person has been double vaccinated is redundant.
Up to a point Lord Copper. Spain is now doing well on vaccines - starting on the under 50s. However, there are many millions older than that, myself includes who don't get a second jab until nearly August and vast numbers of youngsters who won't be vaxed before July. However they are about to allow Brits in without evidence of a negative test or a vaccine. I think that is reckless - the Indian variant is already in the country and in places the data is starting to tick up again.
Yes, certain parts of Europe seem more determined to have a summer holiday season, than to prevent the next wave of the virus.
One thing the scientists mostly miss, is that people on holiday do not behave in the same way socially as people in their home town. They act in ways designed to spread the virus around much more quickly.
Especially so as the people who go on a foreign holiday during a global pandemic are by definition much more risk averse.
Yes, certain parts of Europe seem more determined to have a summer holiday season, than to prevent the next wave of the virus.
One thing the scientists mostly miss, is that people on holiday do not behave in the same way socially as people in their home town. They act in ways designed to spread the virus around much more quickly.
I suspect also that the group of people willing to have a foreign holiday this summer and last summer are self-selectingly going to be a lot less cautious/risk-averse and thus more likely to be doing more risky activities than a randomly selected person from their hometown...
On header, not as convinced about the Tories winning this one as I was about them winning Hartlepool. The difference is the large Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote present in B&S. Look at Peterborough in the 2019 by-election. Everyone thought it would be a Tory win because of the Brexit vote but Labour mobilised the ethnic minority vote which made all the difference. By-elections are all about turnout. If Labour can get this bloc of voters out, it may well keep the seat.
The one slight caveat I would add to this is that I do wonder whether the recent furore over the Batley Grammar School incident is also going to drive up turnout amongst other groups as well, especially if the Labour candidate gets into an awkward spot when asked to condemn it (undoubtedly, it will come up as a topic). I can see a scenario where Labour gets tarred as the "pro-Muslim" party and that persuades the Heavy Woollens to vote Conservative.
I am very uneasy how the media seem to have been captivated by the zero covid, anti government brigade and that they are almost subservient to their views
Just when we need a vigorous and serious media they are failing the country big time and their narrative needs to be challenged
I think it was said on the last thread that if the country is not opened on the 21st June there will we be widespread anger and I do agree, but I think it is more likely that it will be ignored as people decide they are not going to be dictated to by a select few of zero covid zealots who have no care on the economic damage or of course the mental health and delayed urgent medical attention required by so many of our fellow citizens
I do believe we should be provided with far more forensic detail on hospitalisation including the vaccine state of those in hospital, the severity of their condition, and just how many are succumbing to covid and the exact state of the NHS
Yesterday, I listened to Sturgeon and when she was asked to provide these details she prevaricated (which she is a world champion at) and went around the question and it was quite apparent she did not want to reveal how many in Scotland's hospital were unvaccinated or had had their first dose.
Furthermore, I listened to the Welsh news last night which reported there were 8 mile queues accessing North Wales (and they are so welcome) and I was almost 'open mouthed' when Drakeford said that of course everyone coming into Wales must have had a covid test and continue having them whilst here.
Either he was extreme naivety or he is just divorced from reality
I believe we should open on the 21st June, am content for Boris to leave the decision until the 14th, despite again the crescendo of demands from our 'out of touch' media for an answer now, and I have every intention of doing my own thing but with common sense no matter what the media, covid apparatchiks or anyone else says to the contrary
It's not just zero covid types now who are repeatedly on the media, if by that you mean those who want eradication.
We are now seeing what feels like wall-to-wall interviews with those scientists who seem to want us in a position where no one dies of covid or is in hospital. They focus on that at all costs, ignoring the wider health issues that you mention never mind the economy and small businesses. Yes, in an ideal world no one would die of covid. But if the price for that is loads of other people die from undetected cancer then I would say you have lost a sense of balance and proportion.
Absolutely and we are on the same page
Classic FM (who I think get their news from LBC) just dropped a clanger as well. Their leading story described Christina Pagel, a zero Covid idiot who wants to keep us locked down until at least the end of August, as ‘a member of SAGE.’ Well, she isn’t. She’s a member of Independent SAGE, who are a pressure group (and AIUI she’s a mathematician not an epidemiologist anyway). That, to me, is deliberate dishonesty, or so negligent it might as well be dishonesty.
Yes, we have some nuts who want to keep us locked down for ever, like Pagel, or Contrarian (who is patently refusing the vaccine so he can be proved right on endless restrictions). But they can and should be ignored.
Bottom line is, if schools can be reopened without everything descending into chaos, then there’s no reason to keep anything else under control. If there were likely to be a steep rise in hospitalisations and deaths from reopening, given we’ve been open for six consecutive weeks it would have happened by now. It was an extremely brave call to reopen them on the 8th March and although it was plainly made for all the wrong reasons it has turned out to be the right decision.
Therefore, the argument is to bring forward the ending of restrictions, not put it back.
And an even better argument is that everyone is starting to ignore them anyway and attempting to keep imposing them will merely bring the law into disrepute.
In fact, the only good argument for trying to extend is that I think Harper and Baker would actually be able to topple Johnson and put a half-decent PM in.
How would a journalist get confused between the game of a group of scientists who advise the government, and a cranky pressure group with a similar name?
Well, for starters the people actually advising the government aren’t constantly trying to get themselves on the news!
Hopefully the “Independent SAGE” cranks will be lining up for a live half-hour interview with Andrew Neil on GB news in a couple of weeks’ time...
IMHO there’s a fundamental issue with “Independent SAGE” calling themselves that. They are trying to pass themselves off as something they are not while also undermining the independence of the original. In business it would be illegal
I can see no reason choosing that name could be justified as anything other than intending to mislead. It renders any useful comments they might make suspect, and so if they were not intending to obfuscate and confuse things their choice was entirely counter productive.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
It has been pointed out, indeed emphasised, here that voting Tory at ONE election is not enough to make one a Tory. Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
Mmm. Well that's not my def. For me, a person who voted Tory at the last election is a Tory. So there are, as we speak and ignoring deaths, 13,966,454 of the critters. This is not to label and lump. Each one of them is a unique individual with their own bespoke reasons for being what they are. Each one of them has the chance next time to become something different if they so wish. And god I do hope a couple of million of them take it.
You really do mean you want 2 million more to see the light and vote for Boris !!!!!!!!
And my wife would agree that I am quite unique after having lived with me for 57 plus years
How does she know? Or shouldn't we ask that question?
She tells me all the time but often not entirely complimentary
On header, not as convinced about the Tories winning this one as I was about them winning Hartlepool. The difference is the large Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote present in B&S. Look at Peterborough in the 2019 by-election. Everyone thought it would be a Tory win because of the Brexit vote but Labour mobilised the ethnic minority vote which made all the difference. By-elections are all about turnout. If Labour can get this bloc of voters out, it may well keep the seat.
The one slight caveat I would add to this is that I do wonder whether the recent furore over the Batley Grammar School incident is also going to drive up turnout amongst other groups as well, especially if the Labour candidate gets into an awkward spot when asked to condemn it (undoubtedly, it will come up as a topic). I can see a scenario where Labour gets tarred as the "pro-Muslim" party and that persuades the Heavy Woollens to vote Conservative.
Not sure 'get this bloc of voters out' is quite the phrase when postal votes will be the tactic used to do it.
What is significant is the party Mike Smithson doesn't mention. The LibDems. Traditionally the LibDems would be looking to challenge strongly in a byelection wherever it was and whoever had held the seat previously. Now, not a mention.
Not always, Mr Richard. It always depended on circumstances. So this is just yet another of those myths that you Tories have made up in order to belittle the Lib Dems.
In passing, how do you rate the Tories' chances of holding on to Chesham and Amersham? This is a seat that the Conservatives have never lost, and now it looks like a marginal.
Firstly I'm not a Tory.
And yes the LibDems always looked to challenge at byelections.
Sometimes they did well and sometimes they didn't.
But they never gave up before they even started as they did in Hartlepool and Airdrie.
As to C&A, not my part of the world, but as it contains plenty of the LibDems core vote of posh remainers they should do well.
Though they may have a difficulty juggling their messages of "don't build more house" to the oldies and their "build houses" to the younger voters.
Though whatever happens its almost certain to return to being a safe Conservative seat at the next general election.
You voted Tory at the GE, didn't you?
I did.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
Phew. Thank goodness for that. I'd have had to adjust the very innards of my core model if you hadn't voted Tory. Which makes you a Tory right now. I can't be doing with all that 'axis' stuff. It's interesting but there's too much wriggle room with it.
Maybe if you want fewer Tories, then the Labour Party should take a long hard look at itself and ask the question "why are our former voters voting Tory instead".
Or you can just think "Tories, Tories everwhere!"
The very last thing we want to be doing is having a long hard look at ourselves. That's vain and self-indulgent. We need to raise our gaze and look outwards. At the voters. Not just look at them either. We must SEE them. It won't be easy since the temptation is to look away. But you can't do that in politics if you want to gain power. It's a rough old trade and you've got to get right in there.
It’s what lots miss about the Blair formula. Part of the magic was “I’m doing all this stuff that’s visible like Sure Start and new schools, so you won’t mind a nudge towards social reform bit by bit will you?”
Getting committed progressives to understand the logic of slow progress that’s accepted and will win votes is the internal battle to be won. No point in radical change that gets reversed at the next election or won’t get voted for in the first place.
All people know is that those countries (allegedly in the case of China) had very low numbers of cases and deaths. So of course they say “we should have been more like them”. If you actually told them what China, in particular (and to some extent Singapore) actually did they would I’m sure have a different view. And, as pointed out, Taiwan’s main approach was just to shut the border.
I will be amazed if Galloway troubles the scorers in a way that impacts on the results. His latest Scottish venture was yet another embarrassment.
There are fewer Muslims in Scotland than in Bethnal Green, Bradford or Batley.
There's quite a number in Glasgow including the current leader of Scottish Labour. It didn't help Galloway much. He's done.
These things are relative. There's a certain concentration of people of that background in Glasgow (and, to a lesser extent, in the other principal cities,) but Muslims in Scotland only amount to about 1.5% of the population.
Scotland is one of the most homogeneous, monocultural societies on Earth. Take the cities out of the equation and it's white as the driven snow.
The old 'you'd be as racists as us if you had as many people to be racist towards as us' argument. I've noticed purveyors of that argument tend not to be keen on testing their hypothesis by allowing Scotland the powers to sully our 'homogeneous, monocultural' society. That their reason for this is that it would make Scotland an entry point for loads more foreigns to make their way to England thereby providing even more folk to be racist towards is quite entertaining though.
Your post rests on the premise that English are more racist than Scots. You’re entitled to that view, mistaken as it is, but the statistics are that despite being subject to the exactly same immigration controls coming to both for 300 years, far more immigrants (in both proportionate and absolute terms) have chosen to make their homes in England.
At least England (AFAIK) doesn’t suffer from the sectarianism that continues to blight parts of the West of Scotland 😞
Does this to refer to domestic lockdown or preventing international travel? I was in favour of a much harsher and earlier closure of the borders but not necessarily a harsher domestic lockdown, which I think was about right.
If after 11 years in Opposition Labour can't hold Batley & Spen, a seat with far more favourable demographics than Hartlepool and with the advantage of a unique sympathy candidate unavailable to them literally anywhere else in the country, then they are done as a political force for this Parliament and will be even heavier underdogs at the next election than they already were.
Even with the aid of Gorgeous George, I expect, sadly, a Labour hold.
I'd say the same about the Tories maintaining their 29% majority in Chesham and Amersham.
Its interesting how the shooting of Sasha Johnson is still being headlined as "Activist Shooting" and talking all about BLM etc - and not as "Gang Shooting" considering that's what happened.
We need someone who will tackle drug reform and see to it that these gangs are abolished.
Comments
At times, Starmer has in fact made an impact. Through much of 2020, he made decent progress and was rebuilding Labour's reputation for competence. I genuinely doubt a Jess Philips would have been able to do that.
His trouble has been adapting his game to the harder situation, where there has been a successful vaccine rollout and there is some optimism about which Johnson's boosterism is good at capturing. At that point, he needs a back-to-the-wall scrappiness, and campaigning ebullience to roll with the punches and get him and his party through it.
Post local elections is a case in point, where he turned a poor set of results into a crisis for Labour by going to ground. Why wasn't he out that weekend striding around Peterborough, Swansea, Manchester and Bath? I'd feel pretty pissed off if I was a Labour activist in those areas, and it means a negative narrative sets in. I mean, he's right to worry about what happened, but totally wrong to do it publicly.
Basically, he's one note - it's not a bad note, but doesn't make much of a tune. Philips is also one note, though, I fear - just a different note.
https://twitter.com/DoctorChristian/status/1398254510200393740?s=20
Compare with Johnson who recently waddled across the flight deck of the QE, pointed a palsied hand at a T23 and said, "That's a Type 32." You could tell every jack present was thinking "Civvie Shitc--t".
If restaurants offering indoor dining, cinemas open, people coming round your home is "end of lockdown," then ours ended nearly two weeks ago.
I don't really want to stop there, though.
So if you have mental health issues or 'personal circumstances' you can defame people all you like? Sweet.
(No, not really - but I am curious if it is a real defence that you may have defamed someone, but you should not be held accountable due to X)
In the Netherlands they have 70% of people with no active vaccine protection, and as you say a covid case rate of about 200.
For a comparator, that is where we were on vaccines in mid-March.
But their death figures are far better overall.
Losing two unforced by-elections in as many months, both in ‘red wall’ areas, makes things somewhat awkward for the party and leadership.
The results will be interesting.
Not argue the toss.
My brother has quite a severe mental illness which involves obsessing about celebrities and the like, I hope that would be taken into account in any celebrity related activity. Thankfully he hasn't shown the slightest interest in Twitter.
Ernie was, allegedly, heard to growl 'Not while I'm alive, he aint!'
Avoiding having the by-elections would have avoided some bad headlines. But Labour would still have a huge problem with its offer to "traditional" Labour core vote in broadly working class, northern constituencies which voted Leave and more broadly feel neglected and let down by parts of the country they (very possibly wrongly) think have done well in recent decades at their expense.
That would be a huge problem for Labour even without any by-elections. Arguably, it isn't the worst thing for them that it's being brought to the fore and given a prominence they wouldn't if it was "just" a bad set of results in Sunderland local elections and so on, which anyway can more easily be brushed off as a product of a poorly run Council or three.
Technically, we exited "lockdown" on the 29th of March.
We exited into a high restrictions environment (sort of going from Tier 4/lockdown to Tier 3).
We've been progressing down the Tiers, into Tier 2 (ish) in April and Tier 1 (ish) two weeks ago.
There's an irritating conflation of the term "lockdown" with "restrictions" that keeps shifting as restrictions shift.
It's understandable, but it makes any discussion of levels of restrictions impossible.
(I'm reminded of the Lockdown Sceptics insisting that if you counted back from the peak of deaths in the first wave and assumed exactly 20 days between the peak of infections and deaths, you could conclude that we got it under control without lockdown... but merely with closing all pubs, restaurants, schools, cinemas, theatres, gyms, leisure centres, sporting facilities, professional sport, and having everyone possible work from home and socially distance.
At which point, you're blinking and going ... well, um, okay?)
With a few tadpoles swimming around that may turn into frogs, princes or black swans.
Over to Rishi...
Voting Tory on EVERY occasion is the minimum.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
A truly pathetic attempt to rewrite history.
Rotherham 1994, LibDems start in third, gain 17%, finish second
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Rotherham_by-election
Bradford South, 1994 LibDems start in third, gain 10%, finish second
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Bradford_South_by-election
Hemsworth 1991, LibDems start in third, gain 4%, finish second
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Hemsworth_by-election
Bradford North, 1990, LibDems start in third, gain 7%, finish second
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Bradford_North_by-election
And those are only the examples from Yorkshire.
Facts, something you LibDems have been in denial about for the last decade.
Oh, sorry, were you not talking about Starmer?
That trip to the pub during the local elections could have been set to the Benny Hill theme tune.
You obviously cannot have false positives outnumbering the total number of positives, so the false positivity rate HAS to be below 0.03%.
You see though, I don’t agree there either. I really don’t think Richard Burgon is acting when he behaves like an idiot.
Sadly, when journalists operate in an environment where they need two opposing guests shouting across other for seven minutes, even during a global pandemic, their false credibility works perfectly.
And have done on occasions before.
I've also voted numerous times for the LibDems, UKIP, Green (once) and various types of Independent.
So what does that make me ?
Some sort of shifting voter on the right half of the spectrum - those 'find your political location' tests tend to show me as economically centrist and somewhat libertarian (though I suspect they're biased to American viewpoints).
But that doesn't make me a Tory - there are such people on this site but there is a difference between them and the right-of-centre types.
Just as there is a difference between Labourites (horrible word) and various types of left-of-centre people.
(I am a proud Aberdeen graduate btw, but I was not around pre 1950s)
The candidates for C&A are:
Green Carolyne Culver
Rejoin EU Brendan Donnelly
Conservative Peter Fleet
Liberal Democrats Sarah Green
Breakthrough Party Carla Gregory
Freedom Alliance Adrian Oliver
Labour Natasa Pantelic
Reform UK Alex Wilson
So no Gorgeous George.
And my wife would agree that I am quite unique after having lived with me for 57 plus years
One thing the scientists mostly miss, is that people on holiday do not behave in the same way socially as people in their home town. They act in ways designed to spread the virus around much more quickly.
Or you can just think "Tories, Tories everwhere!"
Or yet another damp squib if Starmer yet again asks key questions but leaves the conclusions hanging in the air.
Westminster Voting Intention:
CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 33% (=)
LDM: 10% (+2)
GRN: 5% (-1)
SNP: 5% (+1)
Via @Survation, 27-28 May. Changes w/ 25-26 May.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1398579174231752711?s=20
https://cdn.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/29083526/Survation-Daily-Mail-Politics-Poll-May-2021-Summary.pdf
https://twitter.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1398374786871537664/photo/1
Hats off to the guy - balls of steel
https://twitter.com/BrooksNewmark/status/1398574359757869059
There were plenty of people who had voted Labour or LibDem in 2010 but then they stopped doing so.
Also reminiscent of how Conservative politicians believed that 'their voters' would still vote for them in 1997 because they had in 1992.
Or did it use proper border control ?
Q1.2. Generally speaking, do you think the Government has handled the coronavirus vaccination programme...? (Net Well)
Not at all: +44
Somewhat: +59
Closely: +43
The one slight caveat I would add to this is that I do wonder whether the recent furore over the Batley Grammar School incident is also going to drive up turnout amongst other groups as well, especially if the Labour candidate gets into an awkward spot when asked to condemn it (undoubtedly, it will come up as a topic). I can see a scenario where Labour gets tarred as the "pro-Muslim" party and that persuades the Heavy Woollens to vote Conservative.
Getting committed progressives to understand the logic of slow progress that’s accepted and will win votes is the internal battle to be won. No point in radical change that gets reversed at the next election or won’t get voted for in the first place.
I have this argument a lot with committed greens.
Framing the question differently may well elicit a different answer.
As a population we are fond of our own liberties but very reluctant to accept their spreading to anyone else.
Let's pretend these two things are the same.
Yes, Let's.
We need someone who will tackle drug reform and see to it that these gangs are abolished.
380,855 2nds
England numbers