Howdy, Stranger!

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

Latest voting intention polling following last week’s by-election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited June 2021 in General
imageLatest voting intention polling following last week’s by-election – politicalbetting.com

It was inevitable given how little attention they were getting before their shock victory by some margin in C&A that the LDs were going to see something of a recovery and that is what has happened. But overall the polls are showing very different pictures of the where the Tories stand in relation to LAB.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    1st
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    2nd! Well done England, and unlucky Scotland.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464
    Third, the Conservatives not only need to lose the election, but the very split opposition needs to win. FPTP probably means that the Tories are pretty good at this point, I am still not convinced BJ is the one who'll take them into the GE and have bet accordingly..
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,807
    Fourth... time this year I couldn't sleep. Beautiful morning here in Dorset - mist rising in the valley.

    Hard to see the Tories losing.

    I console myself by the thought that the long sweep of history remains with the Left.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,807
    I can't remember who it was on here who was confidently pronouncing that Covid could be cured by Ivermectin but they had obviously seen the results of this gold standard trial... that is about to start:

    Covid: Ivermectin to be studied as possible treatment in UK

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Deltapoll is likely an outlier, and there's something unusual going on with their methodology anyway: their SNP number is implausibly (and consistently) low, in a fashion that none of the other pollsters match.

    The Lib Dems have been flatlining at around 8% for almost the whole of the last decade (Jo Swinson managed to earn them about an extra 3pts at the 2019 GE with the hardline Remain message, for all the good that it did her; that extra support quickly fell off again.) Some kind of revival might be on the cards in the wake of the by-election win; you can make arguments either way, but it's too early to tell.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Just thinking of regular posters past. Whatever happened to Seph O'Logue?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,807
    edited June 2021
    TimT said:

    Just thinking of regular posters past. Whatever happened to Seph O'Logue?

    Perhaps he or she got a life? ;-)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    what will the longer term outcome of the refusal to grant Bercow a peerage,, Speakers increasingly at the beck and call of the Executive or ones who go completely independent. Nothing much was ever proven against Bercow? wrt the bullying allegations, so I am unsure why he has been refused a seat in the Lords....
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    TimT said:

    Just thinking of regular posters past. Whatever happened to Seph O'Logue?

    I have a memory that he may be sadly deceased but I'm not certain.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,807
    felix said:

    TimT said:

    Just thinking of regular posters past. Whatever happened to Seph O'Logue?

    I have a memory that he may be sadly deceased but I'm not certain.
    Oh dear. Wish I hadn't made my earlier post now :-(
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Times and Mail both reporting today that Government may be preparing a mass bonfire of Covid regs on July 19th - no face masks, no social distancing, end of the WFH advice. I'm assuming this basically means that they are - allegedly - going to junk the lot, save for test and trace and the restrictions on inbound travel.

    It would be an enormous relief if this happened, but these stories could just be kite-flying and one wouldn't believe a word of it regardless, unless or until it actually comes to pass. The pro-lockdown faction will fight this hard, and will be searching the data with a fine toothed comb over the next few weeks for more excuses to stall.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    what will the longer term outcome of the refusal to grant Bercow a peerage,, Speakers increasingly at the beck and call of the Executive or ones who go completely independent. Nothing much was ever proven against Bercow? wrt the bullying allegations, so I am unsure why he has been refused a seat in the Lords....
    As Speaker he set new precedents and ignored old conventions - sauce for the goose...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    Deltapoll is likely an outlier, and there's something unusual going on with their methodology anyway: their SNP number is implausibly (and consistently) low, in a fashion that none of the other pollsters match.

    The Lib Dems have been flatlining at around 8% for almost the whole of the last decade (Jo Swinson managed to earn them about an extra 3pts at the 2019 GE with the hardline Remain message, for all the good that it did her; that extra support quickly fell off again.) Some kind of revival might be on the cards in the wake of the by-election win; you can make arguments either way, but it's too early to tell.

    Hang on, the LDs went from 7.4% to 11.6%, so that's a pretty hefty increase in their vote share - albeit one that resulted in a diminished seat total, and a subsequent reversal.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,170

    Fourth... time this year I couldn't sleep. Beautiful morning here in Dorset - mist rising in the valley.

    Hard to see the Tories losing.

    I console myself by the thought that the long sweep of history remains with the Left.

    Left wing policies anyway.
    North Korea is now a bit of a role model apparently.





  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    rcs1000 said:

    Deltapoll is likely an outlier, and there's something unusual going on with their methodology anyway: their SNP number is implausibly (and consistently) low, in a fashion that none of the other pollsters match.

    The Lib Dems have been flatlining at around 8% for almost the whole of the last decade (Jo Swinson managed to earn them about an extra 3pts at the 2019 GE with the hardline Remain message, for all the good that it did her; that extra support quickly fell off again.) Some kind of revival might be on the cards in the wake of the by-election win; you can make arguments either way, but it's too early to tell.

    Hang on, the LDs went from 7.4% to 11.6%, so that's a pretty hefty increase in their vote share - albeit one that resulted in a diminished seat total, and a subsequent reversal.
    It was a blip caused by a unique set of circumstances that have come and gone. I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in pointing this out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    edited June 2021

    This morning's BBC Covid doctor is going through the latest stats on vaccination and deaths, and describing the continuing insistence on sending whole classes and year groups of children home each time a positive test is found as ridiculous. Goes on to describe the damage that being sent home repeatedly is doing to children's mental health, the rise of social phobia problems in kids, and the collapse of child and adolescent mental health services under the weight of lockdown-induced demand.

    She wants us to stop being irrationally scared of the virus, and welcomes reports of the possible binning of restrictions on July 19th: high time we got our lives back to normal were the words used. Amen to that.

    Since there isn’t such an insistence, I’m not sure why she’s saying it.

    We need to be careful about the gulf between what the government are writing in the guidance and what they’re ordering schools to do in the real world.

    In the real world, schools that actually do send whole classes/year groups home get nasty phone calls from the DfE which include legal threats.

    Edit - that being said, she is right that we need to lift isolation rules anyway if we want to be back to normal in September. And since with very rare exceptions the at risk population will either have been vaccinated, or have refused a vaccine, there isn’t really a reason to keep it going.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20

    More bangers for Buck Johnson?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    ydoethur said:

    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20

    More bangers for Buck Johnson?
    The wurst is behind us.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20

    More bangers for Buck Johnson?
    The wurst is behind us.
    Alas, we still have a Brat First.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Abu Dhabi - first state to offer vaccines to tourists.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/abu-dhabi-begins-offering-free-covid-19-vaccines-to-visitors-1.80117661

    One way of attracting people, to visit somewhere not particularly famous for summer tourism!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    rcs1000 said:

    Deltapoll is likely an outlier, and there's something unusual going on with their methodology anyway: their SNP number is implausibly (and consistently) low, in a fashion that none of the other pollsters match.

    The Lib Dems have been flatlining at around 8% for almost the whole of the last decade (Jo Swinson managed to earn them about an extra 3pts at the 2019 GE with the hardline Remain message, for all the good that it did her; that extra support quickly fell off again.) Some kind of revival might be on the cards in the wake of the by-election win; you can make arguments either way, but it's too early to tell.

    Hang on, the LDs went from 7.4% to 11.6%, so that's a pretty hefty increase in their vote share - albeit one that resulted in a diminished seat total, and a subsequent reversal.
    It was a blip caused by a unique set of circumstances that have come and gone. I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in pointing this out.
    Oh, I thoroughly agree. But I think you were doing down what was a quite substantial increase in their vote share. To put it in context, they went from 2.3m to 3.7m votes.

    One of the slightly amusing things about the LDs is how uncorrelated their seats are with their vote share. So, in 1997, they saw the lowest "third party" share since 1979 (and a lot less than 1974 for example), and yet they more than doubled their seats.

    In 2019, they increased their vote total by 50% and saw a reduction in seats. In 2017, by contrast, they lost more than one in ten of their votes, yet increased their seats 50%. Etc.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    ydoethur said:

    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20

    More bangers for Buck Johnson?
    A rare meating of minds after being stuffed with sage advice?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TimT said:

    Just thinking of regular posters past. Whatever happened to Seph O'Logue?

    Didn’t he mutate into Avery Lymp-Pole?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20

    More bangers for Buck Johnson?
    The wurst is behind us.
    Alas, we still have a Brat First.
    If Ursula were Tou-louse sausages, will they call to bang-her up?
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    SKS is doing the right thing here. I suspect Bercow joined the Labour Party because he felt snubbed, and because he thought he was such a "prize", that it would land him a peerage.

    Such a shame that SKS didn't agree.
    There is a limit to how many he can nominate. It is a big gift to be used to call in favours. Bercow gives him nothing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    These sausage puns are offal.

    I’ll get my coat.

    Have a good morning!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    ydoethur said:

    These sausage puns are offal.

    I’ll get my coat.

    Have a good morning!

    Fork-off.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    In today's Brussels Edition: The EU-U.K. sausage war is set to get a reprieve with officials close to agreeing on a six-month delay on a trade ban

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1407570885574336519?s=20

    More bangers for Buck Johnson?
    The wurst is behind us.
    Alas, we still have a Brat First.
    That’s saucy-son
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,921
    Charles said:

    TimT said:

    Just thinking of regular posters past. Whatever happened to Seph O'Logue?

    Didn’t he mutate into Avery Lymp-Pole?
    Going back to the very early days, what happened to Ben "That said" who was a great champion of the Labour Party?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    Times and Mail both reporting today that Government may be preparing a mass bonfire of Covid regs on July 19th - no face masks, no social distancing, end of the WFH advice. I'm assuming this basically means that they are - allegedly - going to junk the lot, save for test and trace and the restrictions on inbound travel.

    It would be an enormous relief if this happened, but these stories could just be kite-flying and one wouldn't believe a word of it regardless, unless or until it actually comes to pass. The pro-lockdown faction will fight this hard, and will be searching the data with a fine toothed comb over the next few weeks for more excuses to stall.

    The vaccine mix for the nation will be as good as it'll get bar a few youngsters second jabs.
    We might as well push the natural SEIR curve (Whatever it is) whether it peaks at 70, 100k known infections a day during the summer at that point.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    SKS is doing the right thing here. I suspect Bercow joined the Labour Party because he felt snubbed, and because he thought he was such a "prize", that it would land him a peerage.

    Such a shame that SKS didn't agree.
    You mean the f***wit didn’t do a deal in advance? 😂😂😂
    Someone of Bercow's stature wouldn't stoop to do a deal in advance. Such a thing would be below him.
  • borisatsunborisatsun Posts: 188
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    SKS is doing the right thing here. I suspect Bercow joined the Labour Party because he felt snubbed, and because he thought he was such a "prize", that it would land him a peerage.

    Such a shame that SKS didn't agree.
    You mean the f***wit didn’t do a deal in advance? 😂😂😂
    Someone of Bercow's stature wouldn't stoop to do a deal in advance. Such a thing would be below him.
    "Below Bercow" is an empty book.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976
    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,473
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Deltapoll is likely an outlier, and there's something unusual going on with their methodology anyway: their SNP number is implausibly (and consistently) low, in a fashion that none of the other pollsters match.

    The Lib Dems have been flatlining at around 8% for almost the whole of the last decade (Jo Swinson managed to earn them about an extra 3pts at the 2019 GE with the hardline Remain message, for all the good that it did her; that extra support quickly fell off again.) Some kind of revival might be on the cards in the wake of the by-election win; you can make arguments either way, but it's too early to tell.

    Hang on, the LDs went from 7.4% to 11.6%, so that's a pretty hefty increase in their vote share - albeit one that resulted in a diminished seat total, and a subsequent reversal.
    It was a blip caused by a unique set of circumstances that have come and gone. I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in pointing this out.
    Oh, I thoroughly agree. But I think you were doing down what was a quite substantial increase in their vote share. To put it in context, they went from 2.3m to 3.7m votes.

    One of the slightly amusing things about the LDs is how uncorrelated their seats are with their vote share. So, in 1997, they saw the lowest "third party" share since 1979 (and a lot less than 1974 for example), and yet they more than doubled their seats.

    In 2019, they increased their vote total by 50% and saw a reduction in seats. In 2017, by contrast, they lost more than one in ten of their votes, yet increased their seats 50%. Etc.
    Counterintuitive, but not surprising when you look at it from the right way.

    The difference between 1983 and 1992 wasn't really in the Conservative vote share, but how efficiently the anti-Conservative vote was distributed across seats. In 1983, Labour and the Alliance were fighting each other, by 1992 their interests were much better aligned. Something similar happened in reverse between 2017 and 2019.

    But an efficient anti-Conservative vote swap will probably put more votes in the red column, because historically they have had more seats where they are in contention.

    So the chain goes more determination to kick the Tories - more vote swapping - fewer Lib Dem votes but better focused.

    C+A showed one example of 2019 thinking being reversed, B+S may show the other, albeit swamped by BXP and Woolies going blue.
  • O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well quite, Johnson appears petty.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    SKS is doing the right thing here. I suspect Bercow joined the Labour Party because he felt snubbed, and because he thought he was such a "prize", that it would land him a peerage.

    Such a shame that SKS didn't agree.
    There is a limit to how many he can nominate. It is a big gift to be used to call in favours. Bercow gives him nothing.
    Well, nothing other than somebody to have half of shandy with in a Remainian drinking den....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    Have fun!! Cant believe it was five years ago.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    SKS is doing the right thing here. I suspect Bercow joined the Labour Party because he felt snubbed, and because he thought he was such a "prize", that it would land him a peerage.

    Such a shame that SKS didn't agree.
    You mean the f***wit didn’t do a deal in advance? 😂😂😂
    Someone of Bercow's stature wouldn't stoop to do a deal in advance. Such a thing would be below him.
    "Below Bercow" is an empty book.
    He is probably standing on it. The irksome midget.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,039
    I do suspect that our vaccine prioritisation programme was not the most optimal one overall, given hindsight.

    The prioritisation of the most vulnerable first was certainly correct, and we're reaping the benefit in the lower death and hospitalisation rates. But I wonder if, when Groups 1-9 were one-jabbed, it might have been a better route to then invert Phase 2.

    That is: while second-jabbing Groups 1-9, start first-jabbing the rest from Age 18-21 up, rather than down towards Age 18-21.

    After all, arguably the more social interactions happen with younger adults.
    It would have meant my age group came last, which would have been annoying personally, but it might have been the more optimal balance between "reducing deaths" (start with the old and more vulnerable) and "reducing spread" (start with the young and more sociable).

    Still, it certainly did a bloody good job of reducing the overall death toll and hospitalisation rate, so I'm probably just being picky about looking at the "good" and wondering about a "best"
  • borisatsunborisatsun Posts: 188
    Bercow has an absurdly enthusiastic (and misguided) fan club on Twitter. I lost count of the tweets I saw the other night cheering on his defection as just in time to challenge SKS for the Labour leadership.

    And I really don't think they were jokes..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,731
    Lovely morning again here. Hope it's nationwide!

    On former posters, whatever happened to HurstLama?

    On Covid (etc) went yesterday to a pub I hadn't been to for a while, met several old acquaintances, which was good. However, there were discussions of lockdown, and general opinion was
    a) No-one believed that just isolating Billy Gilmour (?sp) was adequate, in terms of preventing the spread of Covid, unless everyone else in the dressing room had been vaccinated.
    and
    b) The admission of 2.500 UEFA officials made a mockery of travel regulations.

    And this was in a pub where one didn't have to sign in in any way, although all of us knew each other.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much
  • Sandpit said:

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    Have fun!! Cant believe it was five years ago.
    Indeed. My biggest memory is walking round to my local polling station just before it opened and there were people waiting to vote that I had canvassed for years who I knew hadn’t voted in a long time, if ever.

    That was when I knew we had won.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    I do suspect that our vaccine prioritisation programme was not the most optimal one overall, given hindsight.

    The prioritisation of the most vulnerable first was certainly correct, and we're reaping the benefit in the lower death and hospitalisation rates. But I wonder if, when Groups 1-9 were one-jabbed, it might have been a better route to then invert Phase 2.

    That is: while second-jabbing Groups 1-9, start first-jabbing the rest from Age 18-21 up, rather than down towards Age 18-21.

    After all, arguably the more social interactions happen with younger adults.
    It would have meant my age group came last, which would have been annoying personally, but it might have been the more optimal balance between "reducing deaths" (start with the old and more vulnerable) and "reducing spread" (start with the young and more sociable).

    Still, it certainly did a bloody good job of reducing the overall death toll and hospitalisation rate, so I'm probably just being picky about looking at the "good" and wondering about a "best"

    You can broadly choose between cases and deaths with any rollout
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,731

    Sandpit said:

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    Have fun!! Cant believe it was five years ago.
    Indeed. My biggest memory is walking round to my local polling station just before it opened and there were people waiting to vote that I had canvassed for years who I knew hadn’t voted in a long time, if ever.

    That was when I knew we had won.
    No, you didn't. You lost. Britain is a smaller, poorer place as a result of the vote.
  • Sandpit said:

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    Have fun!! Cant believe it was five years ago.
    Indeed. My biggest memory is walking round to my local polling station just before it opened and there were people waiting to vote that I had canvassed for years who I knew hadn’t voted in a long time, if ever.

    That was when I knew we had won.
    No, you didn't. You lost. Britain is a smaller, poorer place as a result of the vote.
    Nope.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited June 2021

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    LOL and we miss the Europeans less that we thought too, which sort of says the whole Remainer farrago was a waste of time
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,473

    I do suspect that our vaccine prioritisation programme was not the most optimal one overall, given hindsight.

    The prioritisation of the most vulnerable first was certainly correct, and we're reaping the benefit in the lower death and hospitalisation rates. But I wonder if, when Groups 1-9 were one-jabbed, it might have been a better route to then invert Phase 2.

    That is: while second-jabbing Groups 1-9, start first-jabbing the rest from Age 18-21 up, rather than down towards Age 18-21.

    After all, arguably the more social interactions happen with younger adults.
    It would have meant my age group came last, which would have been annoying personally, but it might have been the more optimal balance between "reducing deaths" (start with the old and more vulnerable) and "reducing spread" (start with the young and more sociable).

    Still, it certainly did a bloody good job of reducing the overall death toll and hospitalisation rate, so I'm probably just being picky about looking at the "good" and wondering about a "best"

    The other factor is that, by leaving the young largely vaccinated, we have left some networks of infection uninterrupted, whilst others are over-broken. After all, below the age of about 50(?), the main reason to get vaccinated is to protect vulnerable others.

    Whether that was carelessness linked to hubris or misunderstanding the problem, I don't know.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    Or France ?

    How will that minimum corporate tax squabble end I wonder
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    I do suspect that our vaccine prioritisation programme was not the most optimal one overall, given hindsight.

    The prioritisation of the most vulnerable first was certainly correct, and we're reaping the benefit in the lower death and hospitalisation rates. But I wonder if, when Groups 1-9 were one-jabbed, it might have been a better route to then invert Phase 2.

    That is: while second-jabbing Groups 1-9, start first-jabbing the rest from Age 18-21 up, rather than down towards Age 18-21.

    After all, arguably the more social interactions happen with younger adults.
    It would have meant my age group came last, which would have been annoying personally, but it might have been the more optimal balance between "reducing deaths" (start with the old and more vulnerable) and "reducing spread" (start with the young and more sociable).

    Still, it certainly did a bloody good job of reducing the overall death toll and hospitalisation rate, so I'm probably just being picky about looking at the "good" and wondering about a "best"

    I suspect there are things to be learned from Wales for rUK....they seem to have got more jabs in arms, and may be having lower infection rates as a result...
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    I am of the view that political representatives should be there on merit and not convention or tradition. If the Lib Dems promise to abolish the Lords maybe I’ll vote for them next time.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    LOL and we miss the Europeans less that we thought too, which sort of says the whole Remainer farrago was a waste of time
    Although EU Citizens (2 million more than we thought we had) seem rather keener on the UK than the much touted Brexodus would have had one believe.....
  • borisatsunborisatsun Posts: 188
    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    I am of the view that political representatives should be there on merit and not convention or tradition. If the Lib Dems promise to abolish the Lords maybe I’ll vote for them next time.
    How do we train the electorate to vote based on 'merit'?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    The Speaker doesn’t need to secure approval of the government, he merely needs to avoid going out of his way to upset them, quite deliberately and over a period of years, over the governments key policy programme, purely because of his personal disagreement with the policy.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    SKS is doing the right thing here. I suspect Bercow joined the Labour Party because he felt snubbed, and because he thought he was such a "prize", that it would land him a peerage.

    Such a shame that SKS didn't agree.
    You mean the f***wit didn’t do a deal in advance? 😂😂😂
    Someone of Bercow's stature wouldn't stoop to do a deal in advance. Such a thing would be below him.
    Few things are below Bercow…
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    Or France ?

    How will that minimum corporate tax squabble end I wonder
    Minimum corporation tax levels are being enforced on Ireland by the UK and the US.

    Irony of ironies.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    LOL and we miss the Europeans less that we thought too, which sort of says the whole Remainer farrago was a waste of time
    Although EU Citizens (2 million more than we thought we had) seem rather keener on the UK than the much touted Brexodus would have had one believe.....
    I thought the UK had seen an exodus of EU citizens in the last 18 months, albeit CV19 related rather than Brexit.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    Or France ?

    How will that minimum corporate tax squabble end I wonder
    Minimum corporation tax levels are being enforced on Ireland by the UK and the US.

    Irony of ironies.
    More Joe than BoJo

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,937

    FPT:
    > John Bercow will not be nominated for a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer despite his defection to the Labour Party.

    Sources close to Starmer said that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the first in two centuries not to be given a seat in the Lords upon retirement, would not be made a peer by the present Labour leadership.

    The opposition’s snub to Bercow, 58, effectively destroys any chance he once had of fulfilling his well-publicised ambition of joining other past Speakers in the upper chamber.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caa20c90-d38a-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=17a6930ac80496aa423712b038c2575d

    As Starmer's days are numbered as Labour Leader, perhaps the Times analysis is premature.

    Burcow may be first in line for a Peerage on Richard Burgon's list.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,473
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    The bit of politics I know best is the Town Hall stuff. It's not uncommon for jumped-up councillors to play silly buggers with who gets to be Mayor, especially when they've just won control. Those games tend to bite those who play them a few years down the line.

    Twee conventions are there to protect everyone. One of the most foolish thing about the Johnson-Cummings "conventions are for conventional people and conventional people are losers" approach to life is that, at some point in the future, the Conservatives will be in opposition again. They're not going to enjoy being treated the way they are treating others right now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974
    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    They didn't stand behind Ireland when in a dispute with AstraZeneca.

    Buried them under a hard border.

    Which they "accidentally" built....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    The Speaker doesn’t need to secure approval of the government, he merely needs to avoid going out of his way to upset them, quite deliberately and over a period of years, over the governments key policy programme, purely because of his personal disagreement with the policy.
    Nevertheless, the peerage for the Speaker is now explicitly the gift of the Government of the day.

    Does Bercow deserve a peerage?

    No.

    Should the Executive have greater control over the Speaker?

    Probably also no.

    But we seem to have ended up with both.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    Or France ?

    How will that minimum corporate tax squabble end I wonder
    Minimum corporation tax levels are being enforced on Ireland by the UK and the US.

    Irony of ironies.
    More Joe than BoJo

    Nevertheless, there's a definite irony that it isn't the EU that will force Ireland to raise corporation tax rates.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,165

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    Strong Britain, Great Nation,

    Strong Britain, Great Nation...

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,462

    Times and Mail both reporting today that Government may be preparing a mass bonfire of Covid regs on July 19th - no face masks, no social distancing, end of the WFH advice. I'm assuming this basically means that they are - allegedly - going to junk the lot, save for test and trace and the restrictions on inbound travel.

    It would be an enormous relief if this happened, but these stories could just be kite-flying and one wouldn't believe a word of it regardless, unless or until it actually comes to pass. The pro-lockdown faction will fight this hard, and will be searching the data with a fine toothed comb over the next few weeks for more excuses to stall.

    Let us hope this end to Covid restrictions on 19th July is more than HMG planting a good headline before Batley and Spen votes tomorrow week.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    It was already politicised when Labour voted to appoint Martin after Boothriyd & then whipped to appoint Bercow.

    The last 4 speakers (since Wetherill? I was just a kid!) have been members of the Labour Party.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    It was already politicised when Labour voted to appoint Martin after Boothriyd & then whipped to appoint Bercow.

    The last 4 speakers (since Wetherill? I was just a kid!) have been members of the Labour Party.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Didn't Bercow make quite a big thing about breaking conventions when he was speaker? You reap what you sow etc. etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680

    Lovely morning again here. Hope it's nationwide!

    On former posters, whatever happened to HurstLama?

    On Covid (etc) went yesterday to a pub I hadn't been to for a while, met several old acquaintances, which was good. However, there were discussions of lockdown, and general opinion was
    a) No-one believed that just isolating Billy Gilmour (?sp) was adequate, in terms of preventing the spread of Covid, unless everyone else in the dressing room had been vaccinated.
    and
    b) The admission of 2.500 UEFA officials made a mockery of travel regulations.

    And this was in a pub where one didn't have to sign in in any way, although all of us knew each other.

    Pubs seem to have stopped the signing in malarky.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    The government deserves a huge serving of shit over the decision to let UEFA hanger-oners in without quarantine.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited June 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    Or France ?

    How will that minimum corporate tax squabble end I wonder
    Minimum corporation tax levels are being enforced on Ireland by the UK and the US.

    Irony of ironies.
    More Joe than BoJo

    Nevertheless, there's a definite irony that it isn't the EU that will force Ireland to raise corporation tax rates.
    Oh Im sure theyll get in on the act, Macron has been p;shing for it since he came to office and will now have his pound of flesh


    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-caught-in-a-squeeze-on-corporation-tax-reform-1.4589605

    one has to be communautaire
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    Agreed. The regular morning's hate session on here isn't exactly edifying, either.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    I hope that the unfolding clusterfuck is all you thought it would be when you voted to leave. As a fellow leave voter I remain agog as to how the government has fucked it up this badly and appears determined to step up the level of fuck still further.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974
    tlg86 said:

    The government deserves a huge serving of shit over the decision to let UEFA hanger-oners in without quarantine.

    They'll be no threat to us here in the UK - as long as they don't hang around any Scotland players.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    LOL and we miss the Europeans less that we thought too, which sort of says the whole Remainer farrago was a waste of time
    Although EU Citizens (2 million more than we thought we had) seem rather keener on the UK than the much touted Brexodus would have had one believe.....
    I thought the UK had seen an exodus of EU citizens in the last 18 months, albeit CV19 related rather than Brexit.
    Possibly....but given more than 5 million have already been given settled status the additional citizens in excess of the 3 million we thought we had will have been even greater....double?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    I hope that the unfolding clusterfuck is all you thought it would be when you voted to leave. As a fellow leave voter I remain agog as to how the government has fucked it up this badly and appears determined to step up the level of fuck still further.
    Its going better than I expected.

    I expected more disruption than we've seen.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    I hope that the unfolding clusterfuck is all you thought it would be when you voted to leave. As a fellow leave voter I remain agog as to how the government has fucked it up this badly and appears determined to step up the level of fuck still further.
    Its going better than I expected.

    I expected more disruption than we've seen.
    According to our local news in the north east 67% of businesses have either seen no change or improved trade with the EU member nations.

    I’m a remainer but it is better than I hoped.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well one cant help but be mildly amused that a man who went large on killing "tradition" and taking a different view is now appealing to "tradition" to get his peerage.
    He's a pompous arse - so perfect for a seat in the Lords. Whether people agree with his reforms or not he served as House speaker for over a decade. It is a basic courtesy to his office that he be able to pass on his experience in the Lords - and the Tories know it.

    Its by no means the most petty self-serving act of wanton destruction they have done, but its on the list. Their utter contempt for Parliament is a sight to behold, and so-called democrats seem to support it because its their side doing it. Unless they can offer the same for a Labour Leader of the House acting in the way that Rees-Mogg does then they are hypocrites.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    It was already politicised when Labour voted to appoint Martin after Boothriyd & then whipped to appoint Bercow.

    The last 4 speakers (since Wetherill? I was just a kid!) have been members of the Labour Party.
    Weatherill - '83-'92 - Con
    Boothroyd - '92-'00 - Lab
    Martin - '00-'09 - Lab
    Bercow - '09-'19 - Con (ish)
    Hoyle - '19- - Lab

    The Speakership election is written up by Wikipedia here, and while it is hardly an unimpeachable source, it doesn't mention whipping.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976
    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Bercow should have been given a peerage by default for services to the House. That the government chose not to bother demonstrates their continuing contempt for the House and basic due process.

    Speakers pop up in the other place and intone their experience of parliament and due democratic process. That Bercow is not going to be able to do so demonstrates shame on Johnson's government which literally nobody cares about.

    So of course serkeir isn't nominating him. It's not for him to do so. Perhaps PM Sunak will do so as part of his efforts to rehabilitate the Conservative Party.

    Well it’s a view.
    I would have given Bercow a peerage, despite the fact that he's pond scum. And worse, pond scum who tried to suppress investigations into bullying in his office.

    There is nothing admirable about Bercow.

    But the Speaker of the House should not be pirouetting to ensure approval of the Government of the day to secure a peerage. A tradition, once broken, is hard to reinvent. From now on, the danger is that this is another power grabbed by the Executive, and the role of Speaker ends up politicised.
    I am of the view that political representatives should be there on merit and not convention or tradition. If the Lib Dems promise to abolish the Lords maybe I’ll vote for them next time.
    I'd abolish the Lords in a heartbeat - a house of fealty and birth has no place in a modern democracy. One of the very few things it does right is provide elder statespeople and experts a seat to pass on their huge skills and experience. Unless you are Bercow apparently.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    Ummm... would the EU have stood behind Ireland if they had been in dispute with Mexico?
    Plus the EU stance is not exactly resolving the issue
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669

    rcs1000 said:

    Moving on: why the EU is not missing Britain that much

    Smaller EU member states were impressed by how the EU has stood behind Ireland in the disputes with the UK over the Irish border, which had raised concern about the peace process, he said. “Small member states told us what is happening in Ireland shows us that when one country has an existential issue that that is an existential issue for all.”

    Given the British role as leader of the EU’s awkward squad, obtaining opt-outs and raising red flags, some things are easier without the UK. “There are different states of sorrow,” said Riekeles. “We miss the British, but probably less than we thought.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/23/moving-on-why-the-eu-is-not-missing-britain-that-much

    LOL and we miss the Europeans less that we thought too, which sort of says the whole Remainer farrago was a waste of time
    Although EU Citizens (2 million more than we thought we had) seem rather keener on the UK than the much touted Brexodus would have had one believe.....
    I thought the UK had seen an exodus of EU citizens in the last 18 months, albeit CV19 related rather than Brexit.
    Possibly....but given more than 5 million have already been given settled status the additional citizens in excess of the 3 million we thought we had will have been even greater....double?
    Like all these things, Covid makes real like-for-like comparisons very difficult, but my gut is that the UK population has probably declined since Brexit. But for entirely non-Brexit reasons.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,640
    ydoethur said:

    This morning's BBC Covid doctor is going through the latest stats on vaccination and deaths, and describing the continuing insistence on sending whole classes and year groups of children home each time a positive test is found as ridiculous. Goes on to describe the damage that being sent home repeatedly is doing to children's mental health, the rise of social phobia problems in kids, and the collapse of child and adolescent mental health services under the weight of lockdown-induced demand.

    She wants us to stop being irrationally scared of the virus, and welcomes reports of the possible binning of restrictions on July 19th: high time we got our lives back to normal were the words used. Amen to that.

    Since there isn’t such an insistence, I’m not sure why she’s saying it.

    We need to be careful about the gulf between what the government are writing in the guidance and what they’re ordering schools to do in the real world.

    In the real world, schools that actually do send whole classes/year groups home get nasty phone calls from the DfE which include legal threats.

    Edit - that being said, she is right that we need to lift isolation rules anyway if we want to be back to normal in September. And since with very rare exceptions the at risk population will either have been vaccinated, or have refused a vaccine, there isn’t really a reason to keep it going.
    A high school a few miles down the road from me has, I'm told, shut up shop now until the summer holidays. They seem to be developing a bit of a hot spot in the area, and that many kids are off that they've decided to simply call it a day.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976
    Foxy said:

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    Strong Britain, Great Nation,

    Strong Britain, Great Nation...

    As always, Count Binface has it right:

    https://twitter.com/CountBinface/status/1407441521197080579

    "Count Binface is urging children to sing Another Brick In The Wall Part 2 on June 25."
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699

    I do suspect that our vaccine prioritisation programme was not the most optimal one overall, given hindsight.

    The prioritisation of the most vulnerable first was certainly correct, and we're reaping the benefit in the lower death and hospitalisation rates. But I wonder if, when Groups 1-9 were one-jabbed, it might have been a better route to then invert Phase 2.

    That is: while second-jabbing Groups 1-9, start first-jabbing the rest from Age 18-21 up, rather than down towards Age 18-21.

    After all, arguably the more social interactions happen with younger adults.
    It would have meant my age group came last, which would have been annoying personally, but it might have been the more optimal balance between "reducing deaths" (start with the old and more vulnerable) and "reducing spread" (start with the young and more sociable).

    Still, it certainly did a bloody good job of reducing the overall death toll and hospitalisation rate, so I'm probably just being picky about looking at the "good" and wondering about a "best"

    The other factor is that, by leaving the young largely vaccinated, we have left some networks of infection uninterrupted, whilst others are over-broken. After all, below the age of about 50(?), the main reason to get vaccinated is to protect vulnerable others.

    Whether that was carelessness linked to hubris or misunderstanding the problem, I don't know.
    I’m not sure there is a right answer to this. I would have love to have seen some trials in regions of other approaches. Would more lives have been saved by targeting the much more likely to be active youngsters rather than sticking to the strict age down roll out? It’s certainly possible. I also think that without delta we’d not have seen such a large rise in cases, and we would be in an even better place than we are today.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669
    Taz said:

    O/T 5 years ago today we voted to leave. Today I am off to London to spend the day on the lash with some of my fellow campaigners to celebrate the anniversary. If anybody sees a very drunken and dishevelled man trying to get on the last train back to Liverpool from Euston tonight, either please help me on or shove me under it depending on how you voted.

    I hope that the unfolding clusterfuck is all you thought it would be when you voted to leave. As a fellow leave voter I remain agog as to how the government has fucked it up this badly and appears determined to step up the level of fuck still further.
    Its going better than I expected.

    I expected more disruption than we've seen.
    According to our local news in the north east 67% of businesses have either seen no change or improved trade with the EU member nations.

    I’m a remainer but it is better than I hoped.
    Personally - although generally optimistic on the opportunities created by Brexit - I would pay exactly zero attention to any economic data until we have seen:

    (a) normalisation of inventory levels caused by pre-Brexit stockpiling
    (b) the end of Covid

    Those two issues make it next to impossible to really work out the impact of Brexit.
This discussion has been closed.