Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

This polling on the COVID crisis from Survation is not very good for ministers – politicalbetting.co

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited May 2021 in General
imageThis polling on the COVID crisis from Survation is not very good for ministers – politicalbetting.com

With our lives continuing to be constrained by the anti-COVID protection measures perceptions like the above look set to have a big impact. The most damaging one above is on the statement about tens of thousands having died. What is interesting is that the same poll has the Tories unchanged with a 10% lead.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    First
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    Il secondo.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    I don't buy the "firmer judgments later" theory. Later this will all be in the past and we'll have other things to make judgments about. Unless we markedly underperform equivalent nations in the final excess death figures - which won't happen - the government will get away with it.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,167
    IshmaelZ said:

    I don't buy the "firmer judgments later" theory. Later this will all be in the past and we'll have other things to make judgments about. Unless we markedly underperform equivalent nations in the final excess death figures - which won't happen - the government will get away with it.

    Yes, I think so too.
  • Options
    BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    edited May 2021
    Until furlough ends fully and we see the economic impact of that and any spending cuts and tax rises after and the post Brexit trade deals we will not be able to see where the land lies.

    Voters clearly felt the government locked down too late last year but the success of the vaccination programme this year has boosted its reputation on the handling of the Covid pandemic for now
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,150
    Indian variant in Texas + lots of unvaxxed Texans = trouble


    ‘Now that B.1.617 variants are emerging here in Houston presumably elsewhere medrxiv.org/content/10.110… my concern is that these VOCs will accelerate across Southern US this summer among the high percentage of unvaccinated. South vaccinated at one-half level of the North, troubling’

    https://twitter.com/peterhotez/status/1398606165060329473?s=21
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    HYUFD said:

    Until furlough ends fully and we see the economic impact of any spending cuts and tax rises and the post Brexit trade deals we will not fully be able to see where the land lies.

    Voters clearly felt the government locked down too late last year but the success of the vaccination programme this year has boosted its reputation on the handling of the Covid pandemic

    As I have repeatedly said, the Government had a good start to the crisis, a very poor middle and an excellent end.

    Which they would probably have settled for. A very poor end to a crisis is not the way you want to be remembered....
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    A caveat very rarely mentioned by its advocates....
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,232
    edited May 2021

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    A caveat very rarely mentioned by its advocates....
    One problem in Wales was that they had two weeks mostly off and then tried to relax restrictions very quickly.

    Which unfortunately had the predictable side effect of spreading cases much faster.

    However, that was before vaccines.

    I still think that the biggest mistake all the way through has not been to temporarily reorganise the school year so that all holidays lasted at least two weeks, even if we’d had to reduce teaching days. After all, it would hardly have been worse than nine weeks of lockdown. And I think it could have been sold to the staff and their unions as a one-off.

    Edit - although Wales’ circuit breaker wasn’t a complete disaster. It led them to make the early call on cancelling exams and moving to a sensible replacement, rather than England and especially Scotland, where the whole thing has been made up on the back of a fag packet. Again.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,942
    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,349
    Hmm it seems that PB like the Newspapers has morphed into the official opposition to Boris.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,138
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    edited May 2021

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    He could win by being Biden to Boris' Trump or Hollande to Boris' Sarkozy yes but Boris and the government would have to become unpopular first
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    edited May 2021

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
    You also don’t want to announce it a week in advance, so that everyone has a ‘last weekend of freedom’ party
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,927
    The polls in the header align almost perfectly with the current VI polls, in that people who wont vote for Boris believe Cummings' version of events, and those who will vote for Boris either disbelieve Cummings, or don't know.

    So really I'd say its just a white label VI poll
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,349
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
    You also don’t want to announce it a week in advance, so that everyone has a ‘last weekend of freedom’ party
    That seems to make very little difference. And trying to change things "on the day" just leads to other chaos.

    So far, in this crisis we have

    - Lockdowns work
    - Vaccines work

    Both take weeks to take effect. Changing the trajectory of this disease can't be done in 2 weeks. It has been demonstrated by the start of lockdowns in dozens of countries.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Is there any polling asking “do you think Labour would have done any better/worse/same?”
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,138

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    A caveat very rarely mentioned by its advocates....
    One problem in Wales was that they had two weeks mostly off and then tried to relax restrictions very quickly.

    Which unfortunately had the predictable side effect of spreading cases much faster.

    However, that was before vaccines.

    I still think that the biggest mistake all the way through has not been to temporarily reorganise the school year so that all holidays lasted at least two weeks, even if we’d had to reduce teaching days. After all, it would hardly have been worse than nine weeks of lockdown. And I think it could have been sold to the staff and their unions as a one-off.

    Edit - although Wales’ circuit breaker wasn’t a complete disaster. It led them to make the early call on cancelling exams and moving to a sensible replacement, rather than England and especially Scotland, where the whole thing has been made up on the back of a fag packet. Again.
    The sensible thing with schooling would have been to take the opportunity to throw away the existing school year and start again. With a structure that makes sense. So that teaching works, exams results (ha) arrive before they are needed etc etc. You could even stagger the school holidays in different areas so the country doesn't all go on holiday at the same time....

    But what am I saying - too many vested interests in a band aid, plus a sticking plaster, plus something as a solution.....
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,779

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
    Rubbish. A little bit of transmutation success will allow us to not just have gold from lead, but we'll be able to contact ghosts and they're sure to tell us about Dark Matter. I guess perhaps you don't own the correct robes to understand modern physics!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    If the choice were between Con and Lab governments, then yes the government could lose the election.

    If the choice is between Con and a Lab/LD/SNP stitch up, then Con keeps winning almost however badly they do. If they need to switch out the leader after a few years, then they’ll do it. As happened in 1990, 2003 and 2019.

    Lab needs to be in 1997 territory, or Con will keep winning.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,174
    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem in Wales was a two week lockdown followed by party-time. Drakeford trashed the circuit breaker principle because he cocked it up.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,150
    Another modest amount of evidence for the lab leak hypothesis. Published back in May 2020


    ‘12 Conclusion

    Up until this point, we have been presenting each of our claims in a vacuum. Let us put them together:

    At some point in late 2019, many people who visited the The Huanan Seafood Market fell ill due to a new disease. To date the origin of this disease is unknown.

    This market is less than 9 miles away from The Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, which:
    Collaborated with French authorities to construct its BSL-4 lab, however the company meant to inspect its safety standards bailed out of the project and French scientists who were supposed to work there were never sent there

    Developed chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses

    Conducted ’dangerous’ gain-of-function research on the SARS-CoV-1 virus

    Established a 96.2% match with SARS-CoV-2 and a virus they sampled from a cave over 1,000 miles away from Wuhan

    Injected live piglets with bat coronaviruses as recently as July 2019: Paper 5, Paper 7, Paper 8

    Tested its disinfecting procedures with a bat coronavirus

    Published a paper on a close descendant of SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, in November 2019

    Collected bat samples with improper PPE even after a researcher was bitten by one

    Was hiring researchers to work on bat coronaviruses as recently as November 2019

    The United States State Department claimed had ’inadequate safety’

    Deleted a press release detailing a U.S. State Department visit

    Has not provided concrete evidence that one of their prior researchers is still alive, despite rumors on Chinese social media that they are "Patient Zero", despite one of their other top researchers coming out and swearing the virus had nothing to do with her lab.....’
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    Yes - a positive vision, not a negative one. "The EU will punish you for being naughty" seemed to be slogan of Remain.

    There is a plenty of space for a social and economic justice program. The key is to sell it as social and economic justice for *everyone* rather than a matrix of special interests. If you look at the Labour manifesto in 45, for example, it was about *everyone* - not just a set of client groups.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,150
    edited May 2021

    ‘The market is also less than 3 miles away from the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control, which:

    Was actually already accused of being the source of the outbreak from a now-withdrawn academic paper from a notable Chinese scholar at the South China University of China

    Once kept horseshoe bats, a known reservoir of SARS-CoV-1, within its labs

    Once performed surgery on live animals within its labs

    Is continuing to refuse an independent investigation into the outbreak origins and threatened Australia with boycotts if they investigated

    Had a researcher who quarantined on two separate occasions; once upon coming into contact with bat blood after being ’attacked’ and another time when he was urinated upon in a cave while wearing inadequate personal protection

    Let us also look at the actions of China before and after the outbreak, which:
    Had the SARS-CoV-1 virus escape from a lab in Beijing, twice

    Compensated families after 27 students were infected with Brucella bacteria during an anatomy course in 2011

    Is currently investigating a similar Brucella outbreak amongst "over 100 Students and Staff" in December 2019

    Issued bio-safety guidelines to ’fix chronic management loopholes at virus labs’

    Arrested a ’top academician’ for illegally selling lab animals and ’experimental milk’ in January 2020

    Censored local medical professionals who attempted to report the outbreak

    Ordered local labs to destroy any samples of the new virus

    Back to the market: the The Huanan Seafood Market didn’t even have bats for sale, and most bats species in Wuhan would be hibernating at the time of outbreak. It was reported that 34% of cases had no contact with the market, and ’No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases’.

    If an infected animal was indeed the culprit, why did it fail to infect a single person outside of the market? It could not have been infected at the market, because there were no bats that could serve as sources of infection. So, where were all the infected people outside of Wuhan by the time SARS-CoV-2 started spreading in the market?

    We hope that this document adequately addressed each claim with what evidence is available and fulfilled its secondary responsibility of educating you on biolaboratory safety. By now, we hope you understand that these claims are not impossible; they are in fact more than likely.’

    I think the hibernation bit is wrong

    https://project-evidence.github.io/
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    Omnium said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
    Rubbish. A little bit of transmutation success will allow us to not just have gold from lead, but we'll be able to contact ghosts and they're sure to tell us about Dark Matter. I guess perhaps you don't own the correct robes to understand modern physics!
    Gold from lead has been demonstrated in the lab.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,138

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    Yes - a positive vision, not a negative one. "The EU will punish you for being naughty" seemed to be slogan of Remain.

    There is a plenty of space for a social and economic justice program. The key is to sell it as social and economic justice for *everyone* rather than a matrix of special interests. If you look at the Labour manifesto in 45, for example, it was about *everyone* - not just a set of client groups.
    I agree but it’s like beating your head against a brick wall trying to get the message across.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,150
    My work is done. Later
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,138
    Leon said:

    My work is done. Later

    Huh?
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,779

    Omnium said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
    Rubbish. A little bit of transmutation success will allow us to not just have gold from lead, but we'll be able to contact ghosts and they're sure to tell us about Dark Matter. I guess perhaps you don't own the correct robes to understand modern physics!
    Gold from lead has been demonstrated in the lab.
    Let's hope it translates when applied to balloons! (Grumble mumble, undermining my post :) )
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    It was telling in Channel 4 news interview a few weeks ago that when Keir Starmer was given the chance to set out what he really stood for, the first thing that came to his mind was campaigning against the death penalty around the world. It's not exactly a live political issue in the UK.
    Could be if Priti ever gets to No10!!
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076
    This is interesting - the number of cases in Dewsbury Savile Town was already falling on a week by week basis in the seven days to May 24th.

    If its not taking off in the part of Dewsbury where the poor Asians live then it will struggle almost everywhere else.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,291
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    It was telling in Channel 4 news interview a few weeks ago that when Keir Starmer was given the chance to set out what he really stood for, the first thing that came to his mind was campaigning against the death penalty around the world. It's not exactly a live political issue in the UK.
    Could be if Priti ever gets to No10!!
    Well let's hope she doesn't get near no 10
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
    There is more activity in the days before the two weeks and the days after the two weeks - both causing an increase in cases.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2021
    Not to go all Leon, but I notice the "it escaped from the lab" narrative is really building. Many major media outlets who previously played it down, I think partly because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, are now suddenly entertaining the idea that it might well be the case.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Not to go all Leon, but I notice the "it escaped from the lab" narrative is really building. Many major media outlets who previously played it down, I think partly because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, are now suddenly entertaining the idea that it might well be the case.

    Once again proving that Trump was not always wrong, particularly when it comes to diagnosing problems. Pretty close to 100% wrong when it comes to proposed solutions, and disastrously wrong in ruining US relationships. But not always wrong on diagnostics.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2021
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
    You also don’t want to announce it a week in advance, so that everyone has a ‘last weekend of freedom’ party
    This is another thing I could never get my head around, why...its makes no sense to give people 5 days notice, especially as the advice is basically don't leave your house...that it.

    Yes business will say they need notice, but really they are screwed regardless.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,232

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    A caveat very rarely mentioned by its advocates....
    One problem in Wales was that they had two weeks mostly off and then tried to relax restrictions very quickly.

    Which unfortunately had the predictable side effect of spreading cases much faster.

    However, that was before vaccines.

    I still think that the biggest mistake all the way through has not been to temporarily reorganise the school year so that all holidays lasted at least two weeks, even if we’d had to reduce teaching days. After all, it would hardly have been worse than nine weeks of lockdown. And I think it could have been sold to the staff and their unions as a one-off.

    Edit - although Wales’ circuit breaker wasn’t a complete disaster. It led them to make the early call on cancelling exams and moving to a sensible replacement, rather than England and especially Scotland, where the whole thing has been made up on the back of a fag packet. Again.
    The sensible thing with schooling would have been to take the opportunity to throw away the existing school year and start again. With a structure that makes sense. So that teaching works, exams results (ha) arrive before they are needed etc etc. You could even stagger the school holidays in different areas so the country doesn't all go on holiday at the same time....

    But what am I saying - too many vested interests in a band aid, plus a sticking plaster, plus something as a solution.....
    Even easier to do that by moving the uni year to a January start. Which would also have made sense on many levels.

    However, I am amused by the fact that the DfE’s proposed new school year assumes there are eighteen weeks between 1st September and 25th December instead of the sixteen and a half weeks there actually are.

    I mean, all teachers knew that they were innumerate cretins who make Indie Sage look like models of ability and integrity but we never thought they would display it quite so blatantly.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    TimT said:

    Not to go all Leon, but I notice the "it escaped from the lab" narrative is really building. Many major media outlets who previously played it down, I think partly because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, are now suddenly entertaining the idea that it might well be the case.

    Once again proving that Trump was not always wrong, particularly when it comes to diagnosing problems. Pretty close to 100% wrong when it comes to proposed solutions, and disastrously wrong in ruining US relationships. But not always wrong on diagnostics.
    He reminds me a bit of Big Dom in that respect. He isn't actually wrong about some of the problems, but his own self importance, refusal to ever be seen to be wrong and happiness to bend the truth, while causing absolute chaos and upsetting everybody everywhere they go, means that when they actually have a point, the instinctive reaction is nonsense.
  • Options
    mickydroymickydroy Posts: 234
    I am firmly of the opinion, that the Tories will win Batley and Spen, but am waiting for the price to get a bit bigger, which I think it will.I have no reason to change my opinion on the next GE, where i think the Tories will win with a reduced majority. But if I were a Tory I would make the most of it.I am utterly convinced they will not win the one after that, and indeed they could find themselves out of power for a very long time, if the greens, libs, and labour, could find some consensus. The problems in this country are stacking up, Johnson said he would sort social care, he has no plan or idea to sort it, the NHS, is in awful state, I myself have been waiting for a knee replacement for over 2 years, even my consultant called it a scandal. The economy before covid hit was at best stagnant, with people in low paid insecure jobs. No doubt the Tories will come out with the same old bullshit, strong and stable, build back better, but it is just meaningless drivel, some time after the next election, the chickens will come home to roost, the labour party wont have to win, the anybody but tory party will romp home.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
    You also don’t want to announce it a week in advance, so that everyone has a ‘last weekend of freedom’ party
    This is another thing I could never get my head around, why...its makes no sense to give people 5 days notice, especially as the advice is basically don't leave your house...that it.

    Yes business will say they need notice, but really they are screwed regardless.
    There are a number of places round the world where they did the start of lockdown from the moment El Presidente (or similar) spoke on TV.

    No noticeable difference in outcome.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    mickydroy said:

    I am firmly of the opinion, that the Tories will win Batley and Spen, but am waiting for the price to get a bit bigger, which I think it will.I have no reason to change my opinion on the next GE, where i think the Tories will win with a reduced majority. But if I were a Tory I would make the most of it.I am utterly convinced they will not win the one after that, and indeed they could find themselves out of power for a very long time, if the greens, libs, and labour, could find some consensus. The problems in this country are stacking up, Johnson said he would sort social care, he has no plan or idea to sort it, the NHS, is in awful state, I myself have been waiting for a knee replacement for over 2 years, even my consultant called it a scandal. The economy before covid hit was at best stagnant, with people in low paid insecure jobs. No doubt the Tories will come out with the same old bullshit, strong and stable, build back better, but it is just meaningless drivel, some time after the next election, the chickens will come home to roost, the labour party wont have to win, the anybody but tory party will romp home.

    Well that would be no surprise given no party since universal suffrage in 1918 has won a UK general election after 15 consecutive years in power.

    However winning in 2024 would still be quite a feat, with Boris winning a general election after 10 years of his party in power, something only Major managed to do in 1992 in the last 100 years
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,232
    On new school years, actually some quick sums suggest the following might work (dates are approximate)

    Back on 1st September for seven weeks
    Break up around the 20th October for two weeks.
    Back on the 3rd November for another seven weeks
    Then break up on 21st December for two weeks.
    Back on the 3rd Jan for six weeks
    Break up on the 14th Feb for one week
    Back on the 21st for six weeks
    Off on the 2nd April for two weeks
    Back on the sixteenth for seven weeks
    Off on the 4th June for two weeks - possibly move the early summer bank holiday to match
    Back on the 18th for seven weeks
    Off from the 5th August for (approximately) four weeks.

    Roughly speaking, that would work out at what we have now, much better spaced out. And I think many staff would be happy to have the break at the start of June for a decent holiday (perhaps abroad) to compensate for losing time in July. Plus, extending the half term in the brutally long autumn term would help a lot.

    Of course, there are issues. Exam marking and moderation springs to mind. When would it happen and who would do it? Couldn’t be teachers as we’d be teaching.

    There are other questions though. Do we need school terms to be so long? Private schools have 10% fewer contact days and yet dominate exam results. Of course, they also have longer teaching days and very much smaller class sizes.

    And ultimately, until the latter is properly embraced in state schools so we target 20 instead of 30 as the acceptable maximum - possibly paid for by abolishing the DfE, OFSTED and Ofqual, sacking all their staff and putting their money towards hiring extra teachers - all this is tinkering about the edges.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
    Starmer is the political equivalent of Huel......
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    edited May 2021

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    The problem with a circuit breaker is that 2 weeks is too short a time to really bring cases down. At the end of it, you have cases starting to dip - if you are lucky.

    Lockdowns work over longer time scales - just look at the start of lockdowns in various countries vs when the effects really started to show.
    You also don’t want to announce it a week in advance, so that everyone has a ‘last weekend of freedom’ party
    This is another thing I could never get my head around, why...its makes no sense to give people 5 days notice, especially as the advice is basically don't leave your house...that it.

    Yes business will say they need notice, but really they are screwed regardless.
    Why do we think the Chancellor used to stand up at 1pm, and announced tax rises on cigarettes and alcohol “from 6pm today”? Giving people days to react to restrictions, just leads to them behaving like idiots in the meantime, when the whole point of increasing restrictions is to prevent the spread of the disease by limiting human interaction.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,779
    ydoethur said:

    On new school years, actually some quick sums suggest the following might work (dates are approximate)

    Back on 1st September for seven weeks
    Break up around the 20th October for two weeks.
    Back on the 3rd November for another seven weeks
    Then break up on 21st December for two weeks.
    Back on the 3rd Jan for six weeks
    Break up on the 14th Feb for one week
    Back on the 21st for six weeks
    Off on the 2nd April for two weeks
    Back on the sixteenth for seven weeks
    Off on the 4th June for two weeks - possibly move the early summer bank holiday to match
    Back on the 18th for seven weeks
    Off from the 5th August for (approximately) four weeks.

    Roughly speaking, that would work out at what we have now, much better spaced out. And I think many staff would be happy to have the break at the start of June for a decent holiday (perhaps abroad) to compensate for losing time in July. Plus, extending the half term in the brutally long autumn term would help a lot.

    Of course, there are issues. Exam marking and moderation springs to mind. When would it happen and who would do it? Couldn’t be teachers as we’d be teaching.

    There are other questions though. Do we need school terms to be so long? Private schools have 10% fewer contact days and yet dominate exam results. Of course, they also have longer teaching days and very much smaller class sizes.

    And ultimately, until the latter is properly embraced in state schools so we target 20 instead of 30 as the acceptable maximum - possibly paid for by abolishing the DfE, OFSTED and Ofqual, sacking all their staff and putting their money towards hiring extra teachers - all this is tinkering about the edges.

    Nice holiday plans! (And yes, I am firmly teasing you)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    It was telling in Channel 4 news interview a few weeks ago that when Keir Starmer was given the chance to set out what he really stood for, the first thing that came to his mind was campaigning against the death penalty around the world. It's not exactly a live political issue in the UK.
    After the locals, Laura Pidcock was bemoaning the loss of Northumberland Labour voters to the Tories by reference to the 150 year old New Hartley pit disaster, which is hardly a pressing matter for the current residents.
    The disaster occurred when Palmerston was PM, which was a Liberal Government. The disaster itself led to the "Act to Amend the Law Relating to Coal Mines of 1862".

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    edited May 2021

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    Yes - a positive vision, not a negative one. "The EU will punish you for being naughty" seemed to be slogan of Remain.

    There is a plenty of space for a social and economic justice program. The key is to sell it as social and economic justice for *everyone* rather than a matrix of special interests. If you look at the Labour manifesto in 45, for example, it was about *everyone* - not just a set of client groups.
    The problem there, is that the whole basis of modern left politics is to separate everyone into groups, often by immutable characteristics.

    It’s fine for them to campaign against ‘bankers’ or ‘businessmen’, ignoring the fact that they actually mean everyone’s pension scheme - but when they campaign against Jews and tell the white people they’re all racists, funnily enough we end up with a Conservative government.

    They need to be positive, as opposed to angry, with a vision that appeals to everyone.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Sandpit said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    Yes - a positive vision, not a negative one. "The EU will punish you for being naughty" seemed to be slogan of Remain.

    There is a plenty of space for a social and economic justice program. The key is to sell it as social and economic justice for *everyone* rather than a matrix of special interests. If you look at the Labour manifesto in 45, for example, it was about *everyone* - not just a set of client groups.
    The problem there, is that the whole basis of modern left politics is to separate everyone into groups, often by immutable characteristics.

    It’s fine for them to campaign against ‘bankers’ or ‘businessmen’, ignoring the fact that they actually mean everyone’s pension scheme - but when they campaign against Jews and tell the white people they’re all racists, funnily enough we end up with a Conservative government.
    You racist....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    They are still pushing this....

    Angela Rayner demands detailed answers on Boris Johnson’s refurb

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/29/angela-rayner-demands-detailed-answers-on-boris-johnsons-refurb
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
    Keir Starmer as a Eurovision entry:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNOynEJ6wc
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    edited May 2021

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
    Starmer has lost a few to the Greens but most of them will return to Labour at the next general election, certainly in the key marginals.

    Boris will always have his passionate supporters as Corbyn did his but there are more passionate Brexiteers than passionate Socialists in the UK so the Tories will always win that ideological argument.

    To win a majority and get voters voting for them Labour needs a centrist leader and ideally a charismatic leader like Blair, otherwise they need a leader who will not scare centrist voters if the economy goes into recession and they are looking for an alternative, Starmer is not Corbyn or Kinnock even if he is no Blair either so he has that advantage if the economy goes downhill before 2024.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,138

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    As I said to HYUFD it’s possible, a lot is possible, but not very likely. People need a credible alternative vision. Remain lost because they just said, essentially “yeah, this is a bit pants, but the alternative is worse” whereas leave said “This is going to be great!”. We can (and indeed have) argued as to the veracity of that prospectus but it is undeniable they were more enthusiastic about their vision. What do Labour actually believe in at the moment? Are they a social justice or an economic justice party? They should try and be both but squaring the circle is proving impossible.
    It was telling in Channel 4 news interview a few weeks ago that when Keir Starmer was given the chance to set out what he really stood for, the first thing that came to his mind was campaigning against the death penalty around the world. It's not exactly a live political issue in the UK.
    After the locals, Laura Pidcock was bemoaning the loss of Northumberland Labour voters to the Tories by reference to the 150 year old New Hartley pit disaster, which is hardly a pressing matter for the current residents.
    The disaster occurred when Palmerston was PM, which was a Liberal Government. The disaster itself led to the "Act to Amend the Law Relating to Coal Mines of 1862".

    No wonder Davey’s bunch did so badly then.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    UK records another 3,398 coronavirus cases and seven related deaths
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    England PCR positivity %

    image
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,779
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
    Starmer has lost a few to the Greens but most of them will return to Labour at the next general election, certainly in the key marginals.

    Boris will always have his passionate supporters as Corbyn did his but there are more passionate Brexiteers than passionate Socialists in the UK so the Tories will always win that ideological argument.

    To win a majority and get voters voting for them Labour needs a centrist leader and ideally a charismatic leader like Blair, otherwise they need a leader who will not scare centrist voters if the economy goes into recession and they are looking for an alternative, Starmer is not Corbyn or Kinnock even if he is no Blair either so he has that advantage if the economy goes downhill before 2024.
    I think there's a chance that Labour is done and dusted. There's nothing there if you poke the balloon, but like a wasps nest you'd be well advised not to. I have no idea what that might lead to.

    (I've long thought this, and have been wrong so far)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    UK case summary

    image
    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    UK Hospitals

    image
    image
    image
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
    Starmer has lost a few to the Greens but most of them will return to Labour at the next general election, certainly in the key marginals.

    Boris will always have his passionate supporters as Corbyn did his but there are more passionate Brexiteers than passionate Socialists in the UK so the Tories will always win that ideological argument.

    To win a majority and get voters voting for them Labour needs a centrist leader and ideally a charismatic leader like Blair, otherwise they need a leader who will not scare centrist voters if the economy goes into recession and they are looking for an alternative, Starmer is not Corbyn or Kinnock even if he is no Blair either so he has that advantage if the economy goes downhill before 2024.
    I think there's a chance that Labour is done and dusted. There's nothing there if you poke the balloon, but like a wasps nest you'd be well advised not to. I have no idea what that might lead to.

    (I've long thought this, and have been wrong so far)
    Labour does not need to win a majority for Starmer to become PM, SNP and LD support in a hung parliament would be enough
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    UK deaths

    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    UK R

    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,817

    They are still pushing this....

    Angela Rayner demands detailed answers on Boris Johnson’s refurb

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/29/angela-rayner-demands-detailed-answers-on-boris-johnsons-refurb

    As Tone used to say. Draw a line and move on...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    Age related data scaled to 100K per age group

    image
    image
    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    CFR

    image
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    UK vaccinations

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,965
    FPT. I think ydoethur.

    My word. This story is so shocking and extraordinary I’m actually struggling to get my head round it:

    Canada mourns as remains of 215 children found at indigenous school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57291530

    If this is borne out by further investigation, it will make that scandal uncovered in Ireland a decade ago look like a picnic.

    Me:
    Canada's dirty, unacknowledged secret. Brutal treatment of children taken from their parents in handcuffs.
    Worse than Ireland. Not quite as bad as Oz, but they have, at least confronted it a little.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    COVID summary

    The vaccine effect becomes clearer and clearer. In a complete reverse of the earlier situation of the epidemic, we have cases rising among the younger groups, and admissions to match.

    image
    image

    Of further interest is this

    image

    note the *increase* in deaths among 85-89, despite a general fall in other groups. This corresponds to the comments that "many" of the deaths are now among elderly, unvaccinated people.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,779
    HYUFD said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Remembering the age old quote about Oppositions not winning elections but Governments losing them, do you not think it entirely possible that Starmer might be able to win simply by being 'normal' and, most importantly, not being Johnson?
    That quote is nonsense in my opinion. Oppositions have to win elections.

    Now, some elections are harder to win from opposition than others, but they do need to be won rather than just being the other lot.
    To a point, if Corbyn was still leading Labour it is hard to see the Tories losing however unpopular they became, Starmer while no great votewinner like Blair at least has neutralised a key reason to vote against Labour
    To a point Lord Copper.

    Starmer has neutralised the reason to vote against Labour, but he's also neutralised the reason to vote for Labour for many too. Hence the disappointment of @bigjohnowls and others who were attracted to Corbynism.

    Starmer is just neutral. Beige.

    The problem for Labour is they seem to want to win purely by virtue of "not being Tories" which has kind of been all Labour has had going for it for a while, but the problem is the public don't hate the Tories in the same way as Labour hardcore do.

    So Starmer is neither giving a reason for or against voting Labour. Leaving the field to Boris. Boris is giving a reason for people to vote Tory, Starmer is not giving a reason for people to vote Labour, so the Tories win by default.
    Starmer has lost a few to the Greens but most of them will return to Labour at the next general election, certainly in the key marginals.

    Boris will always have his passionate supporters as Corbyn did his but there are more passionate Brexiteers than passionate Socialists in the UK so the Tories will always win that ideological argument.

    To win a majority and get voters voting for them Labour needs a centrist leader and ideally a charismatic leader like Blair, otherwise they need a leader who will not scare centrist voters if the economy goes into recession and they are looking for an alternative, Starmer is not Corbyn or Kinnock even if he is no Blair either so he has that advantage if the economy goes downhill before 2024.
    I think there's a chance that Labour is done and dusted. There's nothing there if you poke the balloon, but like a wasps nest you'd be well advised not to. I have no idea what that might lead to.

    (I've long thought this, and have been wrong so far)
    Labour does not need to win a majority for Starmer to become PM, SNP and LD support in a hung parliament would be enough
    I know its an astonishing thing but I had actually worked that out. I'll be able to tie my own shoelaces too soon.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,349
    Omnium said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
    Rubbish. A little bit of transmutation success will allow us to not just have gold from lead, but we'll be able to contact ghosts and they're sure to tell us about Dark Matter. I guess perhaps you don't own the correct robes to understand modern physics!
    I never did understand physics. I wonder at the complexity of the universe but don't understand warping spacetime nor schroedingers cat. I don't really get supermassive black holes but know that the universe is expanding ever faster but into what ?

    What absolutely do know that barring a miracle Labour are likely to remain out if office until they can find someone to square the circle between the two sides of the party that are at war with each other and until they lose the anti semitic label attached to the party.

    I think a few light years should sort it all out.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076

    UK cases by specimen date

    image

    I wonder if there's some reason why Lancashire has been hit harder by Indian variant than Yorkshire, the Midlands or London.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,432
    Couple of questions this polling leaves unanswered:

    First, what happens to support for these statements if you attach Cummings or Starmer to them? Back in the 2000s, adding the Conservative label was enough to make popular policies unpopular.

    Second, how long will the government be able to dine out on having done a good job on vaccination? At the moment, it's understandable that it squashes any potential criticism as effectively a hobnailed boot squashes a snail. But that won't work forever. Will it?
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    UK records another 3,398 coronavirus cases and seven related deaths

    The IFR for those dying within 28 days of eating a Macdonalds must be higher by now ... ;)
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2021

    Couple of questions this polling leaves unanswered:

    First, what happens to support for these statements if you attach Cummings or Starmer to them? Back in the 2000s, adding the Conservative label was enough to make popular policies unpopular.

    Second, how long will the government be able to dine out on having done a good job on vaccination? At the moment, it's understandable that it squashes any potential criticism as effectively a hobnailed boot squashes a snail. But that won't work forever. Will it?

    The big challenge will be getting the economy going, people in jobs, inflation under control and ultimately tough decisions on turning off the spending taps.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    HYUFD said:

    Until furlough ends fully and we see the economic impact of any spending cuts and tax rises and the post Brexit trade deals we will not fully be able to see where the land lies.

    Voters clearly felt the government locked down too late last year but the success of the vaccination programme this year has boosted its reputation on the handling of the Covid pandemic

    As I have repeatedly said, the Government had a good start to the crisis, a very poor middle and an excellent end.

    Which they would probably have settled for. A very poor end to a crisis is not the way you want to be remembered....
    Gee. I don't wish to contemplate what a bad start would have looked like then.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2021
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Until furlough ends fully and we see the economic impact of any spending cuts and tax rises and the post Brexit trade deals we will not fully be able to see where the land lies.

    Voters clearly felt the government locked down too late last year but the success of the vaccination programme this year has boosted its reputation on the handling of the Covid pandemic

    As I have repeatedly said, the Government had a good start to the crisis, a very poor middle and an excellent end.

    Which they would probably have settled for. A very poor end to a crisis is not the way you want to be remembered....
    Gee. I don't wish to contemplate what a bad start would have looked like then.
    Actually, I think it is fair. We know the initial contact tracing was actually very good and bought the UK time. Remember mainland Europe was being hit before us, despite this all seeding from mostly the same place.

    The problem was we didn't use that breathing space, then too slow to lockdown (and didn't close the borders) and too slow to ramp up testing. We did the same at Christmas time, it was clear what needed to be done, and Boris waited a week too long.

    The initial decision pushed by Witty and Valance to only test incoming hospital patients was madness.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,779

    Omnium said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
    Rubbish. A little bit of transmutation success will allow us to not just have gold from lead, but we'll be able to contact ghosts and they're sure to tell us about Dark Matter. I guess perhaps you don't own the correct robes to understand modern physics!
    I never did understand physics. I wonder at the complexity of the universe but don't understand warping spacetime nor schroedingers cat. I don't really get supermassive black holes but know that the universe is expanding ever faster but into what ?

    What absolutely do know that barring a miracle Labour are likely to remain out if office until they can find someone to square the circle between the two sides of the party that are at war with each other and until they lose the anti semitic label attached to the party.

    I think a few light years should sort it all out.
    Physics is just wonderful. You can write a few lines on a piece of paper and it tells you why moons and planets do what they do. It's simply the best poetry. However it can't sing its song everywhere, and there are my concerns.

    For what it's worth nobody understands much of physics, but there's more than that in that there are certainly missing (and probably impossible to understand) pieces.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    A caveat very rarely mentioned by its advocates....
    One problem in Wales was that they had two weeks mostly off and then tried to relax restrictions very quickly.

    Which unfortunately had the predictable side effect of spreading cases much faster.

    However, that was before vaccines.

    I still think that the biggest mistake all the way through has not been to temporarily reorganise the school year so that all holidays lasted at least two weeks, even if we’d had to reduce teaching days. After all, it would hardly have been worse than nine weeks of lockdown. And I think it could have been sold to the staff and their unions as a one-off.

    Edit - although Wales’ circuit breaker wasn’t a complete disaster. It led them to make the early call on cancelling exams and moving to a sensible replacement, rather than England and especially Scotland, where the whole thing has been made up on the back of a fag packet. Again.
    The sensible thing with schooling would have been to take the opportunity to throw away the existing school year and start again. With a structure that makes sense. So that teaching works, exams results (ha) arrive before they are needed etc etc. You could even stagger the school holidays in different areas so the country doesn't all go on holiday at the same time....

    But what am I saying - too many vested interests in a band aid, plus a sticking plaster, plus something as a solution.....
    Even easier to do that by moving the uni year to a January start. Which would also have made sense on many levels.

    However, I am amused by the fact that the DfE’s proposed new school year assumes there are eighteen weeks between 1st September and 25th December instead of the sixteen and a half weeks there actually are.

    I mean, all teachers knew that they were innumerate cretins who make Indie Sage look like models of ability and integrity but we never thought they would display it quite so blatantly.
    I think I see the problem: you are assuming a seven day week.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    I wonder how much COVID the idiots in Porto will bring back?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Until furlough ends fully and we see the economic impact of any spending cuts and tax rises and the post Brexit trade deals we will not fully be able to see where the land lies.

    Voters clearly felt the government locked down too late last year but the success of the vaccination programme this year has boosted its reputation on the handling of the Covid pandemic

    As I have repeatedly said, the Government had a good start to the crisis, a very poor middle and an excellent end.

    Which they would probably have settled for. A very poor end to a crisis is not the way you want to be remembered....
    Gee. I don't wish to contemplate what a bad start would have looked like then.
    Actually, I think it is fair. We know the initial contact tracing was actually very good and bought the UK time. Remember mainland Europe was being hit before us, despite this all seeding from mostly the same place.

    The problem was we didn't use that breathing space, then too slow to lockdown (and didn't close the borders) and too slow to ramp up testing. We did the same at Christmas time, it was clear what needed to be done, and Boris waited a week too long.

    The initial decision pushed by Witty and Valance to only test incoming hospital patients was madness.
    This was based on the Divine Truth that testing couldn't be expanded. Because testing couldn't be expanded within the existing NHS labs (very much).
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,291
    edited May 2021
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,232

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ... but we DID lockdown in November 2020?

    Not schools. The idea of a circuit breaker would be to shut everything for 2-3 weeks.

    However, it should be noted it was tried in Wales and didn’t work.
    A caveat very rarely mentioned by its advocates....
    One problem in Wales was that they had two weeks mostly off and then tried to relax restrictions very quickly.

    Which unfortunately had the predictable side effect of spreading cases much faster.

    However, that was before vaccines.

    I still think that the biggest mistake all the way through has not been to temporarily reorganise the school year so that all holidays lasted at least two weeks, even if we’d had to reduce teaching days. After all, it would hardly have been worse than nine weeks of lockdown. And I think it could have been sold to the staff and their unions as a one-off.

    Edit - although Wales’ circuit breaker wasn’t a complete disaster. It led them to make the early call on cancelling exams and moving to a sensible replacement, rather than England and especially Scotland, where the whole thing has been made up on the back of a fag packet. Again.
    The sensible thing with schooling would have been to take the opportunity to throw away the existing school year and start again. With a structure that makes sense. So that teaching works, exams results (ha) arrive before they are needed etc etc. You could even stagger the school holidays in different areas so the country doesn't all go on holiday at the same time....

    But what am I saying - too many vested interests in a band aid, plus a sticking plaster, plus something as a solution.....
    Even easier to do that by moving the uni year to a January start. Which would also have made sense on many levels.

    However, I am amused by the fact that the DfE’s proposed new school year assumes there are eighteen weeks between 1st September and 25th December instead of the sixteen and a half weeks there actually are.

    I mean, all teachers knew that they were innumerate cretins who make Indie Sage look like models of ability and integrity but we never thought they would display it quite so blatantly.
    I think I see the problem: you are assuming a seven day week.
    Of course! Just legislate to change that and all our problems are solved!
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    I don't entirely agree, there is no great enthusiasm for the dull Starmer but he also does not repel voters to vote against him as Corbyn did either.

    If the economy goes downhill in the next few years then while a Labour majority remains unlikely a PM Starmer propped up by LD gains in the South, Labour gains in London and part of the Red Wall and the SNP remains possible
    I accept that that is possible but vanishingly unlikely I think.
    Like someone discovering dark matter anytime soon...
    Rubbish. A little bit of transmutation success will allow us to not just have gold from lead, but we'll be able to contact ghosts and they're sure to tell us about Dark Matter. I guess perhaps you don't own the correct robes to understand modern physics!
    I never did understand physics. I wonder at the complexity of the universe but don't understand warping spacetime nor schroedingers cat. I don't really get supermassive black holes but know that the universe is expanding ever faster but into what ?

    What absolutely do know that barring a miracle Labour are likely to remain out if office until they can find someone to square the circle between the two sides of the party that are at war with each other and until they lose the anti semitic label attached to the party.

    I think a few light years should sort it all out.
    Physics is just wonderful. You can write a few lines on a piece of paper and it tells you why moons and planets do what they do. It's simply the best poetry. However it can't sing its song everywhere, and there are my concerns.

    For what it's worth nobody understands much of physics, but there's more than that in that there are certainly missing (and probably impossible to understand) pieces.
    Heat
    Cannot of itself
    Move
    From a cold body to a hotter.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    DougSeal said:

    All this is kind of spectacularly missing the point. “Trouble” will only arrive when a credible alternative presents itself. All this happened last year and has made barely a dent in the polls which, if anything, are getting better for the Tories

    I regret, as someone who was a Labour supporter most of his adult life, that credible alternative is just not there at the moment. Labour is an untenable coalition of strong minded socialists and equally strong minded social liberals. The problem is that the former is an anathema in the South, the latter an anathema in the Midlands and North. Until someone can square that circle the Tories can spectacularly screw up as often as they like.

    Boris -- whether you call him a pragmatist or an opportunist -- occupies the centre ground and even some of the ground to the left of centre, leaving little or no room for his opponents.

    Labour can move further left, but that does not really help them build a winning Coalition.

    Boris wants to make his mark as a famous PM like Churchill & so I am sure he will do whatever it takes to remain popular and win the next election, irrespective of ideology.

    In fact, Boris is almost completely free of ideology. If we need to spend more money for Boris to get elected again, then we'll spend it.

    Sure, there will ultimately be an electoral reckoning, but I don't think it will be in 2024.

    In fact, I don't think Boris will be leading the Tories when the bill is presented. Some other luckless individual will be.

    Boris will have done a runner.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Down to a 14 point lead.

    The Starmer surge is on!
This discussion has been closed.