Also this zero deaths day has come with perfect timing as it's completely derailed all of the zero COVID bullshit from the last few days and made them all look ridiculous. Loads of people had stopped paying attention to the detailed numbers but this evening there was loads of chat in the family WhatsApp about 0 deaths and that the scientists have their own agenda and want to keep everyone locked away. Listening to the scientists people seem to have assumed the situation is really bad with loads of people still dying but this has completely shattered the illusion the scientists were trying to create that we're "on a knife edge" etc...
The zero covidians will be shifting the goal posts....they are the inverse of the likes of Alister Haimes.
The new target is between minus 10 and minus 100 deaths. If we can't meet that target, it's only right to keep the lockdown going.
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
OK fair enough. Was genuinely unaware this was still a thing. Knew it happened shortly after re opening. No evidence of it in the Northeast. Maybe I don't go where the in crowd go.
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
OK fair enough. Was genuinely unaware this was still a thing. Knew it happened shortly after re opening. No evidence of it in the Northeast. Maybe I don't go where the in crowd go.
In Havering they book 60% of tables and leave the rest to first come, first served on the night
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
OK fair enough. Was genuinely unaware this was still a thing. Knew it happened shortly after re opening. No evidence of it in the Northeast. Maybe I don't go where the in crowd go.
In Havering they book 60% of tables and leave the rest to first come, first served on the night
OK. Maybe some of the punters have pre booked. I am famously unobservant. But you don't have to book if you are unconcerned where you drink. I am also rather unfussy. Won't queue, just go somewhere less popular.
Did anybody actually watch the old Starmer interview?
No, and that’s the problem. It’ll do only about 2 million viewers, mostly politically engaged who aren’t swing voters. I think because he’s so dull a lot of people wouldn’t tune in anyway.
When he’s got to turn on the charisma is prior to a general election when millions more people consider their vote and might dip into a bit more politics than usual.
I expect the audience share will be far greater when he interviewed Gemma Collins or Colleen Nolan than SKS..
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
Get a gaiter. They’re brilliant. They look cool in all weathers. Slip it over your mouth and nose for shops
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
OK fair enough. Was genuinely unaware this was still a thing. Knew it happened shortly after re opening. No evidence of it in the Northeast. Maybe I don't go where the in crowd go.
In Havering they book 60% of tables and leave the rest to first come, first served on the night
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
I was hoping to see the back of all of those restrictions on 21st June.
Yes. No way he’d say all this - to the New York Times - unless he felt something big was trundling in our direction. Buckle up
Are some people on social media enjoying their exploiting of the poor media literacy skills of others, such as being able to identify misinformation, or is this stuff, pushing the line governments hiding evidence that aliens have visited earth [or insert anything] just harmless fun?
Is it really wrong and harmful to indulge in such pastime of conspiracy theories ? Are there social consequences? Could conspiracy theories undermine democracy? Undermine internal relations in a country or internationally? If it’s health base conspiracy for example, will it lead to deaths? Undermine trust in authority, where trust is needed?
Does it all work on basis it can’t be proved, but damn hard to utterly disprove too, that is actually part of an absolutist anti-governmentalism agenda to undermine a regulatory state and credentialed experts, leading us to an undemocratic and elitist future?
You, Flint Knob, are pushing two simultaneously - UFO conspiracy - China Virus conspiracy. You do it like you hold all the facts, bare assertions, so it’s open and shut case. Though you obviously haven’t heard the Scientists playing with COVID in the lab used to meet children in subterranean room of a sushi restaurant, in their private life.
Ask yourself, which of the two books you are going to write next, what do people want to read and which gets Hollywood interested - how it was actually impossible for Elizabeth l to keep up the secret she was a man throughout her life and after - or that it’s credible a child under care could die from something and be swapped out with a boy from Bisley? we even have a skeleton.
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
In Camden and primrose hill the pubs are all wide open and you can swing by, any time (outside peak hours - Friday evening etc). I hope the govt ditches all restrictions June 21st. Enuff
Did anybody actually watch the old Starmer interview?
No, and that’s the problem. It’ll do only about 2 million viewers, mostly politically engaged who aren’t swing voters. I think because he’s so dull a lot of people wouldn’t tune in anyway.
When he’s got to turn on the charisma is prior to a general election when millions more people consider their vote and might dip into a bit more politics than usual.
I expect the audience share will be far greater when he interviewed Gemma Collins or Colleen Nolan than SKS..
Without doubt. It’s half term and the weather is warm, plus the lead-inshow ‘Masked Dancer’ has been underachieving.
I’m surprised ‘Life Stories’ is still going in some regards, I mean Piers Morgan is bad enough but 10 years ago he had James Corden and Rolf Harris as back to back guests.
The only fast way of getting the public to give a politician a fresh look en masse is to go on Strictly or Im a Celeb, but that can also help kill careers as shown with Kezia Dugdale.
Yes. No way he’d say all this - to the New York Times - unless he felt something big was trundling in our direction. Buckle up
Are some people on social media enjoying their exploiting of the poor media literacy skills of others, such as being able to identify misinformation, or is this stuff, pushing the line governments hiding evidence that aliens have visited earth [or insert anything] just harmless fun?
Is it really wrong and harmful to indulge in such pastime of conspiracy theories ? Are there social consequences? Could conspiracy theories undermine democracy? Undermine internal relations in a country or internationally? If it’s health base conspiracy for example, will it lead to deaths? Undermine trust in authority, where trust is needed?
Does it all work on basis it can’t be proved, but damn hard to utterly disprove too, that is actually part of an absolutist anti-governmentalism agenda to undermine a regulatory state and credentialed experts, leading us to an undemocratic and elitist future?
You, Flint Knob, are pushing two simultaneously - UFO conspiracy - China Virus conspiracy. You do it like you hold all the facts, bare assertions, so it’s open and shut case. Though you obviously haven’t heard the Scientists playing with COVID in the lab used to meet children in subterranean room of a sushi restaurant, in their private life.
Ask yourself, which of the two books you are going to write next, what do people want to read and which gets Hollywood interested - how it was actually impossible for Elizabeth l to keep up the secret she was a man throughout her life and after - or that it’s credible a child under care could die from something and be swapped out with a boy from Bisley? we even have a skeleton.
You appreciate you have a case to answer?
I shall print and frame this comment and put it on the wall of my loo
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
In Camden and primrose hill the pubs are all wide open and you can swing by, any time (outside peak hours - Friday evening etc). I hope the govt ditches all restrictions June 21st. Enuff
Spare a thought for those of us who still have another 2 months until will be fully vaxxed...sigh...
OK fair enough. Was genuinely unaware this was still a thing. Knew it happened shortly after re opening. No evidence of it in the Northeast. Maybe I don't go where the in crowd go.
Very variable by area, I think. I visited friends at the weekend (how daring) and we went to the excellent local Indian restuarant in The Avenue, Ealing. Door wide open throughout, big plastic screens separating the widely-spaced tables, all staff wearing masks. Had another Indian meal with a friend in Croydon before heading back, and the staff wore masks but the door was shut and no particular table separation (but also not many people there).
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
In Camden and primrose hill the pubs are all wide open and you can swing by, any time (outside peak hours - Friday evening etc). I hope the govt ditches all restrictions June 21st. Enuff
Spare a thought for those of us who still have another 2 months until will be fully vaxxed...sigh...
Aren’t you 40-50? And already single jabbed? Your risk is minimal already.
If you’re under 40 it’s tiny. Forgive me if I’ve got this wrong
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
That's not good enough, sitting at the bar and standing in the pub are part of being in a pub. Of all people I thought you'd realise it!
End all restrictions on June 21st. No half measures that the zero COVID c***s will turn into permanent "low cost" interventions like mask wearing. People are free to wear them but it should be a personal choice from June 21st onwards.
I’m on holiday this week and the mask-on, mask-off nonsense is driving me bonkers. I have lost six or seven masks in three days! I look forward to the day when the mask mandate ends, as I am simply too absent-minded to manage the bloody things. And they are really uncomfortable in warm weather.
I'm sick of having to plan evenings out and book everything in advance and get to the next place within 15 minutes of the booking time and all of that crap. There's no more spontaneity. We can't just decide to go to the pub or to a restaurant and stay for an indefinite period of time. Life is now made up of two hour blocks.
You have to book to go to the pub? Isn't happening up here. Pub not full, rock up. Pub full. Queue. More likely find pub not full.
The pubs that my wife and I like to go to are always packed and now only take bookings. The manager said that they'd need for social distancing to be canned to remove that restriction.
In Camden and primrose hill the pubs are all wide open and you can swing by, any time (outside peak hours - Friday evening etc). I hope the govt ditches all restrictions June 21st. Enuff
Spare a thought for those of us who still have another 2 months until will be fully vaxxed...sigh...
Aren’t you 40-50? And already single jabbed? Your risk is minimal already.
If you’re under 40 it’s tiny. Forgive me if I’ve got this wrong
I am low risk and had one jab (which was the Skynet one, so high protection from first jab), but still giving crowded indoor locations a swerve until had the 2nd one.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
District includes: >most of Bernalillo County (appox 75% of district) including bulk of City of Albuquerque > part of Sandoval County, in particular suburban Rio Rancho > all of rural, desert Torrance County > part of Valencia County, esp Los Lunas > small section of Santa Fe County with few people
As of Jan 2021, registration breakdown, total = 466k (source NM Secretary of State) > Democratic 218k (48%) > Republican 132k (28%) > Libertarian 5k (1%) > other (mostly non-party) 111k (24%)
My guess is that earliest results reported will be from early voting, which appears was dominated by Democrats. Note that total special election early vote = 93k, which is 20% of registered voters and obviously much higher % of final turnout.
May take some time for rest of the vote to come in tonight.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
I'm no expert but Sadiq K has had a fairly bumpy year with opponents (unfairly) hammering him on crime, whilst SKS's leadership (dont mention Europe..) probably didnt get the Momentum vote out and the Greens pushed hard. In some ways I think he did ok under the circumstances...makes the next London elections most interesting
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the London population today were living in London in 1981, and compare that to the figure for the rest of the country. I have no idea what the results would be but they'd probably be interesting.
Regrettably the first two links are coming up with a "blocked in Europe" message. I can read the third one.
Interesting. Usually NYT is behind paywall, but sometimes they make exception for election returns. It will update regularly based on AP feed.
Saw somewhere that vote counting (except for odds & ends) SHOULD be finished by 10pm Mountain Time. But do NOT hold your breath!
The election will likely be decided in the mostly Anglo, middle-class neighborhoods up on the heights. It is NOT a coincidence that both the Democratic and Republican nominees are state representatives from this area.
While we wait for numbers, check out this clip from 2019 Albuquerque Balloon Festival
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
That misses the point. Labour should certainly have disowned him by removing the Whip - leaving him to sit as an independent. He was persuaded to resign his seat , though he could have ignored what the leadership said to him. The allegations against him are not obviously more serious than those made against the Tory MP for Delyn- yet we see no immediate sign of a by election there. Hartlepool could easily have been put off until the Autumn - and possibly into 2022. By that time the political scene could look more challenging for the Tories. Starmer showed serious lack of 'nous' in how he dealt with it. Holding Batley&Spen as early as July 1st is also high risk, and makes me fear that Starmer lacks the political instincts and antennae needed of a leader. He is no Harold Wilson.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
That misses the point. Labour should certainly have disowned him by removing the Whip - leaving him to sit as an independent. He was persuaded to resign his seat , though he could have ignored what the leadership said to him. The allegations against him are not obviously more serious than those made against the Tory MP for Delyn- yet we see no immediate sign of a by election there. Hartlepool could easily have been put off until the Autumn - and possibly into 2022. By that time the political scene could look more challenging for the Tories. Starmer showed serious lack of 'nous' in how he dealt with it. Holding Batley&Spen as early as July 1st is also high risk, and makes me fear that Starmer lacks the political instincts and antennae needed of a leader. He is no Harold Wilson.
I don't understand why he decided to hold them on the dates he has. Maybe he thought it was better to get them over and done with.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the London population today were living in London in 1981, and compare that to the figure for the rest of the country. I have no idea what the results would be but they'd probably be interesting.
London is now over 40% ethnic minority. 1990 it was ~20%. So i would guess 1981, even less than 20%. Plus huge number of the likes of eastern European (white) immigrants in London that wouldn't have been there in 1981.
Its population has been totally transformed in the past 30-40 years.
There was a report a few weeks showing the British migration in, and then out, of London, where they headed when they left. i didn't look at the numbers, but I think that is also an established significant pattern now, move to London in your 20s, leave in your 40s. Which means constant turn over.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
That misses the point. Labour should certainly have disowned him by removing the Whip - leaving him to sit as an independent. He was persuaded to resign his seat , though he could have ignored what the leadership said to him. The allegations against him are not obviously more serious than those made against the Tory MP for Delyn- yet we see no immediate sign of a by election there. Hartlepool could easily have been put off until the Autumn - and possibly into 2022. By that time the political scene could look more challenging for the Tories. Starmer showed serious lack of 'nous' in how he dealt with it. Holding Batley&Spen as early as July 1st is also high risk, and makes me fear that Starmer lacks the political instincts and antennae needed of a leader. He is no Harold Wilson.
Aren’t Labour supposed to be better than the Tories? The fact Tories are dishonourable scum is priced in.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
That misses the point. Labour should certainly have disowned him by removing the Whip - leaving him to sit as an independent. He was persuaded to resign his seat , though he could have ignored what the leadership said to him. The allegations against him are not obviously more serious than those made against the Tory MP for Delyn- yet we see no immediate sign of a by election there. Hartlepool could easily have been put off until the Autumn - and possibly into 2022. By that time the political scene could look more challenging for the Tories. Starmer showed serious lack of 'nous' in how he dealt with it. Holding Batley&Spen as early as July 1st is also high risk, and makes me fear that Starmer lacks the political instincts and antennae needed of a leader. He is no Harold Wilson.
Aren’t Labour supposed to be better than the Tories? The fact Tories are dishonourable scum is priced in.
They never even sent me my toasted baby to eat after I voted for them on one occasion.....
Melanie Stansbury (D) 57.6% Mark Moores (R) 38.5% Aubrey Dunn (I) 2.7% Christopher Manning 1.1%
Votes above are from Sandoval (65% of pcts plus I think EV), Santa Fe (EV) and Valencia (EV); no votes yet from Bernalillo (the Big Enchilada) or Torrance.
Valencia has gone heavily for Stansbury, note this part of district is heavily Hispanic. But Valencia mostly in, so not much left there.
EDIT - Bernalillo just posted a handful of votes, which went for Moores. and lowered Stansbury to 54.7% and him to 41.2% districtwide
EDIT - Looking at county numbers on NYT website, note total ballots counted (excluding the Lib with just 1% districtwide) and with zero from Torrance Co = 92k which is very close to total Early Vote ballots reported.
So could be that the votes counted so far are all EVs and without poll votes.
KRQE-TV - Melanie Stansbury projected winner of CD1 seat
Democrat Melanie Stansbury is the projected winner of the Congressional District 1 seat. This marks the third special election for a Congressional seat in New Mexico in 24 years. Stansbury will represent New Mexico’s Congressional District 1 in the U.S. House of Representatives through 2022.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
That misses the point. Labour should certainly have disowned him by removing the Whip - leaving him to sit as an independent. He was persuaded to resign his seat , though he could have ignored what the leadership said to him. The allegations against him are not obviously more serious than those made against the Tory MP for Delyn- yet we see no immediate sign of a by election there. Hartlepool could easily have been put off until the Autumn - and possibly into 2022. By that time the political scene could look more challenging for the Tories. Starmer showed serious lack of 'nous' in how he dealt with it. Holding Batley&Spen as early as July 1st is also high risk, and makes me fear that Starmer lacks the political instincts and antennae needed of a leader. He is no Harold Wilson.
I reckon in 6 months time..... Hartlepool will have been forgotten (but will pop up as a byelection factoid every now and again). Its easy to use hindsight wrt to Hartlepool.
B&S - well thats a different matter entirely, perhaps SKS trusts his subordinates? which is unusual in British political parties.
Of course the really urgent issue is to decide what the hell happens with next year’s exams. But as OFQUAL are in charge of it and they are (to coin a phrase) as thick as mince and lazy as toads the only thing we can be sure of is that it will be another shambles.
Starmer is clearly decent, warm, human being who got where he is through his own efforts overcoming serious problems along the way.
Doomed as a politician then....
Well let’s hope not and he done pretty well so far. Party leader and a serious contender for no10 is more than pretty much everyone else achieves in politics.
You obviously missed the recent polling showing his ratings as bad as any Labour leader (at a comparable time, I believe worse than Jezza) and Labour being 10% back.
And those local elections...Labour didn't even manage to win control of the London Assembly....Remainistan left leaning London...
Saying Labour didn't win control of the London Assembly is like saying the Tories didn't win a majority of votes at the last General Election
Labour's performance in London was very poor. The few places it went well, a couple of uni towns and where there was a big personal mandidate e.g. Burnham.
The London Mayoral performance was ok - particularly in relation to prevailing party vote shares nationally. Compared with the 2012 result when Johnson narrowly held off Livingstone to narrowly win a second term, it represented a 6.5% Con to Lab swing.
We were talking about London Assembly..and conparisons to 2012 are mute, the world has changed, we are now post Brexit, Boris / Tories burned loads of bridges.
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
In the context of a national Tory lead of 7% - 10% it was still ok.Labour's margin over the Tories at the 1981 GLC elections was narrower - ie when the Tories under Horace Cutler were defeated.
Again the world has changed...it isn't 1981...London is a different place and we are post-Brexit, which currently is a big anchor on the Tories in places like London from some traditional voting blocks i.e. middle / upper middle class people who voted Remain....
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
Only Yougov has Labour below 30% - a clear House effect matched by a very high Green vote. The latter would struggle to exceed 3% in a GE IMHO. Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them. I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
sexual allegations against the former MP.... its a no brainer but to ditch him.
That misses the point. Labour should certainly have disowned him by removing the Whip - leaving him to sit as an independent. He was persuaded to resign his seat , though he could have ignored what the leadership said to him. The allegations against him are not obviously more serious than those made against the Tory MP for Delyn- yet we see no immediate sign of a by election there. Hartlepool could easily have been put off until the Autumn - and possibly into 2022. By that time the political scene could look more challenging for the Tories. Starmer showed serious lack of 'nous' in how he dealt with it. Holding Batley&Spen as early as July 1st is also high risk, and makes me fear that Starmer lacks the political instincts and antennae needed of a leader. He is no Harold Wilson.
That is actually a disturbing story. If he behaved towards her as she says, she should complain, regardless of his particular circumstances. If he didn’t, she shouldn’t be saying such things. But in neither case should she be talking to the media in a bid to pressure him to resign without making a formal complaint. That’s not on and actually undermines the credibility of the complaints process.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
Many of the large tech companies are seriously failing to understand why people object to this stuff. It’s a complete privacy nightmare, by design, with hardware you’ve paid for - and it’s a change in functionality that the customer didn’t ask for, and appears to be forced on them under pain of their expensive hardware becoming a brick.
That is actually a disturbing story. If he behaved towards her as she says, she should complain, regardless of his particular circumstances. If he didn’t, she shouldn’t be saying such things. But in neither case should she be talking to the media in a bid to pressure him to resign without making a formal complaint. That’s not on and actually undermines the credibility of the complaints process.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
He likely has grounds for an OFCOM complaint about the BBC. It’s pretty close to blackmail, to say to the media that you’ll make a complaint against a named person unless he resigns from his job.
That is actually a disturbing story. If he behaved towards her as she says, she should complain, regardless of his particular circumstances. If he didn’t, she shouldn’t be saying such things. But in neither case should she be talking to the media in a bid to pressure him to resign without making a formal complaint. That’s not on and actually undermines the credibility of the complaints process.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
He likely has grounds for an OFCOM complaint about the BBC. It’s pretty close to blackmail, to say to the media that you’ll make a complaint against a named person unless he resigns from his job.
Yes, but even key figures in his own party (JRM) seem to make the argument he should go...so the Beeb is doing more than just hinting at the complaint
That is actually a disturbing story. If he behaved towards her as she says, she should complain, regardless of his particular circumstances. If he didn’t, she shouldn’t be saying such things. But in neither case should she be talking to the media in a bid to pressure him to resign without making a formal complaint. That’s not on and actually undermines the credibility of the complaints process.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
He likely has grounds for an OFCOM complaint about the BBC. It’s pretty close to blackmail, to say to the media that you’ll make a complaint against a named person unless he resigns from his job.
Yes, but even key figures in his own party (JRM) seem to make the argument he should go...so the Beeb is doing more than just hinting at the complaint
Oh of course, I think he should resign too - but publishing thinly veiled threats against individuals is not what the BBC should be doing, and they should be called out for it.
That is actually a disturbing story. If he behaved towards her as she says, she should complain, regardless of his particular circumstances. If he didn’t, she shouldn’t be saying such things. But in neither case should she be talking to the media in a bid to pressure him to resign without making a formal complaint. That’s not on and actually undermines the credibility of the complaints process.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
He likely has grounds for an OFCOM complaint about the BBC. It’s pretty close to blackmail, to say to the media that you’ll make a complaint against a named person unless he resigns from his job.
Yes, but even key figures in his own party (JRM) seem to make the argument he should go...so the Beeb is doing more than just hinting at the complaint
Yes, but they (the Beeb, that is) should not be. If he’s innocent, which I personally think is unlikely but is the legal situation, they’ve just libelled him. If he is guilty, the way it’s been done means any actual complaint will be dismissed as completely worthless. It will just be described as media whistling.
They should have told her to stop talking to them and start talking to the police. Have they learned nothing at all from the Cliff Richard case?
That is actually a disturbing story. If he behaved towards her as she says, she should complain, regardless of his particular circumstances. If he didn’t, she shouldn’t be saying such things. But in neither case should she be talking to the media in a bid to pressure him to resign without making a formal complaint. That’s not on and actually undermines the credibility of the complaints process.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
He likely has grounds for an OFCOM complaint about the BBC. It’s pretty close to blackmail, to say to the media that you’ll make a complaint against a named person unless he resigns from his job.
Yes, but even key figures in his own party (JRM) seem to make the argument he should go...so the Beeb is doing more than just hinting at the complaint
Oh of course, I think he should resign too - but publishing thinly veiled threats against individuals is not what the BBC should be doing, and they should be called out for it.
If anything, this is likely to make his position more secure. I don’t think the Commons authorities or the police will take kindly to the way this has been done. It looks like they are being pressured to presume guilt which is what’s got them into trouble before.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
Indeed.
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
I took screenshots of a legal argument made by Allison Bailey, which beautifully explains the difference between sex & gender. I didn't know that under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 only those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate can declare himself lawfully to be a woman.
OT, but only slightly, has anyone in their 30s cancelled and rebooked an earlier 2nd jab? I'm keen but also wary of the cancel button coming before the rebooking options...
I took screenshots of a legal argument made by Allison Bailey, which beautifully explains the difference between sex & gender. I didn't know that under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 only those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate can declare himself lawfully to be a woman.
There’s a bill going through Congress now to allow men to identify as women in prison, and move to the women’s prison. This already happens in California, with entirely the outcomes you’d have thought might happen.
I see in the New Mexico special election the Dem candidate won by only 24 points which is *check notes* 8 points higher than the Dems got in November and higher even than the margin Biden won the district by.
I haven't yet worked out how this shows the Anti-Biden backlash is in full swing and the deep disgust at the socialists in Congress is being manifested by the people but I'll get back to you on that.
Our new case numbers yesterday were higher than both Italy and Germany’s, which illustrates the good progress now being made in the EU with both vaccination and summer weather.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
Indeed.
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
Depending on which figures you look at, either two or four people who had been double jabbed have died from this new variant. That’s out of a very substantial number of cases.
Therefore either this new variant is not especially serious - evidence not supported by the figures from India - or vaccines are very highly effective against it - if not in spreading it, at least in reducing its severity.
In neither case should we be talking about delaying opening up.
Our new case numbers yesterday were higher than both Italy and Germany’s, which illustrates the good progress now being made in the EU with both vaccination and summer weather.
OT, but only slightly, has anyone in their 30s cancelled and rebooked an earlier 2nd jab? I'm keen but also wary of the cancel button coming before the rebooking options...
I haven’t been given a date for my second jab yet. I’m planning to get in in the last week of July if I can, which would be about nine weeks after the first jab.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
Indeed.
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
Depending on which figures you look at, either two or four people who had been double jabbed have died from this new variant. That’s out of a very substantial number of cases.
Therefore either this new variant is not especially serious - evidence not supported by the figures from India - or vaccines are very highly effective against it - if not in spreading it, at least in reducing its severity.
In neither case should we be talking about delaying opening up.
Have we established the dead double jabbed cases where definitely two or more weeks beyond their second jab, which seems crucial to me.
OT, but only slightly, has anyone in their 30s cancelled and rebooked an earlier 2nd jab? I'm keen but also wary of the cancel button coming before the rebooking options...
In think someone posted last night/evening on this very subject. They had iirc done a rebook successfully, but you better go through the thread and check my recollection is correct.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
Indeed.
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
Depending on which figures you look at, either two or four people who had been double jabbed have died from this new variant. That’s out of a very substantial number of cases.
Therefore either this new variant is not especially serious - evidence not supported by the figures from India - or vaccines are very highly effective against it - if not in spreading it, at least in reducing its severity.
In neither case should we be talking about delaying opening up.
Have we established the dead double jabbed cases where definitely two or more weeks beyond their second jab, which seems crucial to me.
Well, I haven’t personally.
There are cases of vaccine failure, even with double dose. It’s hardly surprising therefore if these people who have sadly died despite being double jabbed are another example of it. That’s one reason why to stop people getting ill we need to jab as many people as possible.
Another lovely sunny morning; how soon before we get drought warnings,?Although I see that someone is advising us not to use mains water on our lawns.
14.7degC on my app!
I'm off this afternoon to do my bit in the u3a's Open Day; getting us going again and recruiting new members now it looks as though meetings will be possible.
"Vaccination is keeping Covid patients out of intensive care, NHS bosses have said, as data shows that Indian variant hotspots have started to pass their peaks."
Another lovely sunny morning; how soon before we get drought warnings,?Although I see that someone is advising us not to use mains water on our lawns.
14.7degC on my app!
I'm off this afternoon to do my bit in the u3a's Open Day; getting us going again and recruiting new members now it looks as though meetings will be possible.
What are we supposed to do, piss on them?
(Normally I would have water butts but due to building works they’ve had to be moved and are currently empty.)
Bell is a refreshing change from the endless Pagel/Gupta show we have had across the media the last week.
I've noticed R4 seems to be getting more balanced contributors in recent days - a great improvement on the publicity seeking doom mongers....
Maybe the more balanced members of science community were away enjoying the sunshine over the half term/bank holiday rather than hunched over twitter typing 'doom' every few minutes?
I took screenshots of a legal argument made by Allison Bailey, which beautifully explains the difference between sex & gender. I didn't know that under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 only those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate can declare himself lawfully to be a woman.
There’s a bill going through Congress now to allow men to identify as women in prison, and move to the women’s prison. This already happens in California, with entirely the outcomes you’d have thought might happen.
...while S9 GRA provides a legal right to be treated equally as a woman, it cannot conceivably turn a man, biologically, physically and anatomically into a woman. That would be transubstantiation, which is not within the gift of legislation.
Another lovely sunny morning; how soon before we get drought warnings,?Although I see that someone is advising us not to use mains water on our lawns.
14.7degC on my app!
I'm off this afternoon to do my bit in the u3a's Open Day; getting us going again and recruiting new members now it looks as though meetings will be possible.
What are we supposed to do, piss on them?
(Normally I would have water butts but due to building works they’ve had to be moved and are currently empty.)
Let the lawn go brown according to the RHS. Grass is, after all, pretty resilient. And I've got some photos somewhere of the local cricket club, where it's difficult to distinguish the square from the rest of the field, all are so brown.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
Indeed.
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
Depending on which figures you look at, either two or four people who had been double jabbed have died from this new variant. That’s out of a very substantial number of cases.
Therefore either this new variant is not especially serious - evidence not supported by the figures from India - or vaccines are very highly effective against it - if not in spreading it, at least in reducing its severity.
In neither case should we be talking about delaying opening up.
Have we established the dead double jabbed cases where definitely two or more weeks beyond their second jab, which seems crucial to me.
Well, I haven’t personally.
There are cases of vaccine failure, even with double dose. It’s hardly surprising therefore if these people who have sadly died despite being double jabbed are another example of it. That’s one reason why to stop people getting ill we need to jab as many people as possible.
I agree. I doubt anyone is arguing that we shouldn't vaccinate as many people as possible. Well, except Lozza Fox. But the question is should we be locking down again because of the new variant while we do more vaccination and I think the government is right to not make a decision yet, but is clearly minded to not reintroduce further restrictions and indeed to stick to 21st deadline on new stuff.
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
Is that what you're expecting, or wanting, or have seen somewhere?
Its not good enough. Seating at the bar is part of a pub. Masks are not.
Its time to get back to normal. If someone unvaccinated doesn't want to go to a pub operating like normal, they have a simple choice: don't go there!
Robert Dingwall has been nicknamed “Robert Dingbat” in government due to his rent-a-quote activity over the past year or so. Whitehall officials have been bemused that a part-time professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University is presented in some sections of the media as a pandemic expert just because he sits on one government advisory group and loves talking to journalists.
Another lovely sunny morning; how soon before we get drought warnings,?Although I see that someone is advising us not to use mains water on our lawns.
14.7degC on my app!
I'm off this afternoon to do my bit in the u3a's Open Day; getting us going again and recruiting new members now it looks as though meetings will be possible.
What are we supposed to do, piss on them?
(Normally I would have water butts but due to building works they’ve had to be moved and are currently empty.)
Let the grass go brown. It revives with the first proper rain.
I would have thought that the reservoirs must be pretty full at present.
Another lovely sunny morning; how soon before we get drought warnings,?Although I see that someone is advising us not to use mains water on our lawns.
14.7degC on my app!
I'm off this afternoon to do my bit in the u3a's Open Day; getting us going again and recruiting new members now it looks as though meetings will be possible.
What are we supposed to do, piss on them?
(Normally I would have water butts but due to building works they’ve had to be moved and are currently empty.)
Let the grass go brown. It revives with the first proper rain.
I would have thought that the reservoirs must be pretty full at present.
I’ve just had to reseed it. That isn’t going to work.
Comments
Maybe I don't go where the in crowd go.
But you don't have to book if you are unconcerned where you drink.
I am also rather unfussy. Won't queue, just go somewhere less popular.
Are the cricket highlights going to be on a FreeView channel tomorrow? I've had a quick search but can't find anything.
Why There are Now So Many Shortages (It's Not COVID)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1JlYZQG3lI
https://www.icebreaker.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-IB-UK-Site/en_GB/Product-Show
Is it really wrong and harmful to indulge in such pastime of conspiracy theories ? Are there social consequences? Could conspiracy theories undermine democracy? Undermine internal relations in a country or internationally? If it’s health base conspiracy for example, will it lead to deaths? Undermine trust in authority, where trust is needed?
Does it all work on basis it can’t be proved, but damn hard to utterly disprove too, that is actually part of an absolutist anti-governmentalism agenda to undermine a regulatory state and credentialed experts, leading us to an undemocratic and elitist future?
You, Flint Knob, are pushing two simultaneously - UFO conspiracy - China Virus conspiracy. You do it like you hold all the facts, bare assertions, so it’s open and shut case. Though you obviously haven’t heard the Scientists playing with COVID in the lab used to meet children in subterranean room of a sushi restaurant, in their private life.
Ask yourself, which of the two books you are going to write next, what do people want to read and which gets Hollywood interested - how it was actually impossible for Elizabeth l to keep up the secret she was a man throughout her life and after - or that it’s credible a child under care could die from something and be swapped out with a boy from Bisley? we even have a skeleton.
You appreciate you have a case to answer?
I’m surprised ‘Life Stories’ is still going in some regards, I mean Piers Morgan is bad enough but 10 years ago he had James Corden and Rolf Harris as back to back guests.
The only fast way of getting the public to give a politician a fresh look en masse is to go on Strictly or Im a Celeb, but that can also help kill careers as shown with Kezia Dugdale.
If you’re under 40 it’s tiny. Forgive me if I’ve got this wrong
https://youtu.be/pnjEthFzHOk
Thought some of you might like it. Not political.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-57320450
No extended school day...teachers will be happy. Looks like the government will be outsourcing the tutoring.
Cricket highlights will be on BBC TV apparently.
BBC has 5 year contract with the ECB from 2020 to 2024 inclusive for:
- Highlights of all home England Tests, ODIs and T20s
- Two live T20s
Plus the Hundred - 10 live games.
Plus Womens Hundred - 8 live games
But on Mayoral, the useless Shaun Bailey did better for the Tories than last time.... that's piss poor for Labour, whose candidate is a well polished political operator.
Labour should be smashing it in London, but they don't even control the Assembly.
And as you say in the context of a Tory 10% lead....that's poor in itself, which was the original point, where I was saying polling is bad, and the real world test of that was the local election were poor for Labour (outside of a couple of uni towns and some personal mandates for popular candidates).
It might even be worse than 10%, Labour could be sub 30%. I don't think they are, but we have had polls with that shockingly low numbers. The old adage in the recent past was take the worse Labour number and the best Tory number as a reasonable estimate of the real situation, then we are talking 15%+.
District includes:
>most of Bernalillo County (appox 75% of district) including bulk of City of Albuquerque
> part of Sandoval County, in particular suburban Rio Rancho
> all of rural, desert Torrance County
> part of Valencia County, esp Los Lunas
> small section of Santa Fe County with few people
As of Jan 2021, registration breakdown, total = 466k (source NM Secretary of State)
> Democratic 218k (48%)
> Republican 132k (28%)
> Libertarian 5k (1%)
> other (mostly non-party) 111k (24%)
My guess is that earliest results reported will be from early voting, which appears was dominated by Democrats. Note that total special election early vote = 93k, which is 20% of registered voters and obviously much higher % of final turnout.
May take some time for rest of the vote to come in tonight.
Addendum - turns out more current info re: voter reg is available, if you want to see it check out
https://www.sos.state.nm.us/2021-voter-registration-data/
Labour did ok in Manchester - Liverpool- West Yorks - Wales - West of England Mayoralty - Peterborough & Cambridge - Kent - Sussex coast - parts of Cornwall. Much as I expected - Scotland rather disappointing for them.
I was far more disturbed by the loss of a by election which did not need to be called at all - a self-inflicted wound for which Starmer bears responsibility. Should Labour lose Batley& Spen, he should be ousted on the basis that - yet again - the by election has been mistimed.
https://www.koat.com/article/us-house-district-1-results-new-mexico-special-election/36594055
https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/elections/cd1-special-election-drawing-nearly-27-turnout-so-far/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/01/us/elections/results-new-mexico-house-district-1-special-election.html
Saw somewhere that vote counting (except for odds & ends) SHOULD be finished by 10pm Mountain Time. But do NOT hold your breath!
The election will likely be decided in the mostly Anglo, middle-class neighborhoods up on the heights. It is NOT a coincidence that both the Democratic and Republican nominees are state representatives from this area.
While we wait for numbers, check out this clip from 2019 Albuquerque Balloon Festival
Hot air balloons finally rise at New Mexico fiesta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQwTIhxBuSQ
Its population has been totally transformed in the past 30-40 years.
There was a report a few weeks showing the British migration in, and then out, of London, where they headed when they left. i didn't look at the numbers, but I think that is also an established significant pattern now, move to London in your 20s, leave in your 40s. Which means constant turn over.
https://decisiondeskhq.com/election-results-new-mexico-1st-congressional-district-special-election/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/amazon-devices-will-soon-automatically-share-your-internet-with-neighbors/
Melanie Stansbury (D) 57.6%
Mark Moores (R) 38.5%
Aubrey Dunn (I) 2.7%
Christopher Manning 1.1%
Votes above are from Sandoval (65% of pcts plus I think EV), Santa Fe (EV) and Valencia (EV); no votes yet from Bernalillo (the Big Enchilada) or Torrance.
Valencia has gone heavily for Stansbury, note this part of district is heavily Hispanic. But Valencia mostly in, so not much left there.
EDIT - Bernalillo just posted a handful of votes, which went for Moores. and lowered Stansbury to 54.7% and him to 41.2% districtwide
Democrat
58,983 63.8%
Mark Moores
Republican
30,030 32.5
Aubrey Dunn
Independent
2,375 2.6
Christopher Manning
Libertarian
1,105 1.2
Total reported
92,493
Bernalillo says 68% reported, Sandoval 77%, rest under 1%
@Redistrict
I've seen enough: Melanie Stansbury (D) defeats Mark Moores (R) in #NM01 special election to fill the unexpired term of Deb Haaland (D)."
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1399905029524492293
So could be that the votes counted so far are all EVs and without poll votes.
EDIT - Torrance just reported small number of votes that went for Moores
Democrat Melanie Stansbury is the projected winner of the Congressional District 1 seat. This marks the third special election for a Congressional seat in New Mexico in 24 years. Stansbury will represent New Mexico’s Congressional District 1 in the U.S. House of Representatives through 2022.
B&S - well thats a different matter entirely, perhaps SKS trusts his subordinates? which is unusual in British political parties.
of front pages
They also seem underwhelmed with the idea when people bother to ask them:
What students really want from school catch-up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-57246697
Of course the really urgent issue is to decide what the hell happens with next year’s exams. But as OFQUAL are in charge of it and they are (to coin a phrase) as thick as mince and lazy as toads the only thing we can be sure of is that it will be another shambles.
The fact that procedures have been messed up so he hasn’t been removed is a different problem.
There are some bloody curmudgeonly people around.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
They should have told her to stop talking to them and start talking to the police. Have they learned nothing at all from the Cliff Richard case?
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
“Obama told New York Times columnist Ezra Klein that hopefully aliens could unite humans.
Obama told Klein he "absolutely" would like to know what exactly are the unidentified objects picked up by military infrared cameras and radar”
https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-ufo-quote-ezra-klein-interview-senate-report-2021-6
I took screenshots of a legal argument made by Allison Bailey, which beautifully explains the difference between sex & gender.
I didn't know that under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 only those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate can declare himself lawfully to be a woman.
https://twitter.com/giddeeaunt/status/1399482206993719296?s=21
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/male-inmates-in-womens-prisons-11622474215
I haven't yet worked out how this shows the Anti-Biden backlash is in full swing and the deep disgust at the socialists in Congress is being manifested by the people but I'll get back to you on that.
Therefore either this new variant is not especially serious - evidence not supported by the figures from India - or vaccines are very highly effective against it - if not in spreading it, at least in reducing its severity.
In neither case should we be talking about delaying opening up.
Need balance, need to move on. keep an eye on serious cases not cases in general.
A scientist finally with some sense of proportion.
There are cases of vaccine failure, even with double dose. It’s hardly surprising therefore if these people who have sadly died despite being double jabbed are another example of it. That’s one reason why to stop people getting ill we need to jab as many people as possible.
14.7degC on my app!
I'm off this afternoon to do my bit in the u3a's Open Day; getting us going again and recruiting new members now it looks as though meetings will be possible.
Telegraph
(Normally I would have water butts but due to building works they’ve had to be moved and are currently empty.)
...while S9 GRA provides a legal right to be treated equally as a woman, it cannot conceivably turn a man, biologically, physically and anatomically into a woman. That would be transubstantiation, which is not within the gift of legislation.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8101/CBP-8101.pdf
If Starmer's family didn't have a TV it would almost certainly have been through choice.
Its not good enough. Seating at the bar is part of a pub. Masks are not.
Its time to get back to normal. If someone unvaccinated doesn't want to go to a pub operating like normal, they have a simple choice: don't go there!
Robert Dingwall has been nicknamed “Robert Dingbat” in government due to his rent-a-quote activity over the past year or so. Whitehall officials have been bemused that a part-time professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University is presented in some sections of the media as a pandemic expert just because he sits on one government advisory group and loves talking to journalists.
https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/politico-london-playbook-4-hour-fiasco-zeroing-in-on-freedom-had-enough-of-experts/
I would have thought that the reservoirs must be pretty full at present.