Categories
Options
Why Labour would be crazy to replace Starmer – politicalbetting.com
Why Labour would be crazy to replace Starmer – politicalbetting.com
Last Thursday’s by-election result in Batley and Spen should help quieten down the Starmer should go narrative that was building up particularly in the media. This has been a product of the extraordinarily difficult period that the LAB leader has found himself in after securing the job two weeks into the first lockdown in April last year.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Maybe the quiet forensic man will turn up the volume.
Which reminds me, Slab trying to out-unionist the Tories in Scotland doesn't work. I think the UK (sic) Labour Party is wise to keep Mr Starmer. He c ertainly can't be accused of out-clowning the PM.
All they seem to say is that we shouldn't unlockdown but propose no viable alternative for society. We're now heading for the least worst long term solution to this. Vulnerable people are all fully vaccinated plus 2 weeks, by July 19th anyone who wants a vaccine will simply be able to walk in and get one so any hold outs will have to be personally responsible for their own health rather than make society pay for their stupidity of rejecting it.
Is it ideal to unlockdown now? Probably not, it would be better if we had done 90% of adults twice and started making headway with 12-17 year olds. However, there is no ideal scenario because if we wait for that then we start looking at a final step unlockdown in September which means any exit wave will hit in October just as flu season starts.
Every choice on this has got pros and cons. Currently the pros absolutely outweigh the cons. Having an exit wave over the summer when there is going to be less transmission because events are more likely to be outdoors plus there will be less chance of overwhelming the NHS with COVID patients as well as flu patients.
The reality is that COVID is here to stay, we need to live in a society that is comfortable with that idea and this next step will be welcome for a lot of people. For those who need a bit of extra time to get used to the old normal, no one is forcing them to go out and if they're not vaccinated then it's really on them.
The state of the Labour party makes that difficult to achieve, but he has to do build out the team. He could do with tub-thumping left-winger, a brexiteer and a red-wall native.
And a futile leadership challenge with no hope of success, a La Owen Smith, is the very last thing Labour needs.
So it may happen.
So if we aren't going to have another full lockdown — and neither the case rates, hospital admissions, or deaths warrant it — then we need to accept that the vaccines are our only significant measure to tackle the Delta variant, or any other variant, and put our remaining effort behind the vaccination programme whilst dispensing with almost everything else.
There are wide-open goals here for all sides: covid has had a massively disruptive effect. Johnson, Starmer or Davey (ha!) need to find and communicate a vision for the country that melds the desire for normality with a forward-looking agenda that might be unthinkable in ordinary times.
This may seem to be right on Labour's pitch, but with Brexit Johnson has shown that he can deliver the unthinkable, even if some don't like it. On the other hand, Starmer might be competent, but he's not exactly inspirational, and too many people behind him will want a hard-left agenda that has alrady been rejected twice by the electorate.
So, what prospectus can the parties offer the electorate that makes the most out of this opportunity for change, without frightening the horses too much?
Starmer's problem is multi-faceted. There is the woke issue. His personality doesn't help as it comes across as somewhat insincere and saying what he thinks people want to hear. The main thing is his brand - he's viewed by many of those he needs to win back in traditional Red Wall seats as a hardcore Remainer. Labour would be better off with Burnham - he wouldn't win either but at least he would give a better impression Labour has accepted the Brexit vote and he would not come across as another one of the North London metro elite.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
Brexit at any cost, as we know.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1412041301600636928
None of those roadblocks trumps democracy.
But the story of the recent approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug does suggest, at the very least, disturbing evidence of regulatory capture:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/inside-e2-80-98project-onyx-e2-80-99-how-biogen-used-an-fda-back-channel-to-win-approval-of-its-polarizing-alzheimer-e2-80-99s-drug/ar-AALzzpL
(Though note that there have been numerous recent decisions considerably less favourable to pharma.)
My lazy reading of the numbers suggests that - at the very least - case numbers have stopped going up.
Whereas the govt says you "should do" the tests.
And as I said, not so long ago it was every day.
- Pre-travel test: €58
- Day 2 & 8 tests: £159
- Test to release: £129
That’s 6 days in isolation and almost €400 just on tests for one person
Funnily enough legitimate travel to the septic isle has collapsed.
Coming the other way, if you have a Covid Pass, costs nothing extra.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1412074455141163012?s=20
"BBC News Special
Coronavirus Update: 127"
The question for the anti-lockdown brigade is what the maximum number of deaths they would be willing to have to pretend we are back to normal.
What are the key things people are looking to hear that will affect them personally.
As I have said, for me it is the end to 10-day isolation if pinged.
If he wins or gets enough seats to force a hung parliament he likely becomes PM, if he loses then Burnham will likely be back in Parliament at that stage and replace him as Labour leader then
Chapeau.
Sorry, but I can't let this response disappear into the ether of an old thread:
"I agree with Nick... Susan Mitchie's political views are quite separate from her professional advice. But perhaps the government should have had the foresight to engage a neo-Nazi behavioural scientist as well, for the sake of balance."
Well they have a Communist so why not? Oh, I get it ... Communists are so cute and cuddly, harmless really, and not at all unpalatable. If she can leave her political views at the door why not a neo-Nazi? Give me a break. You may think there is no comparison; I beg to differ.
You don't think balance is important in government advisory bodies, particular those that are unelected and unaccountable, and those that literally hold the power of influence to remove basic human rights? Or is it OK as long as they are all from the bastion of the moderate centre that is academia? Jeez.
Lucky Starmer.
(a) complete the vaccination program. So everyone double-jabbed, then when that's done they switch to teenagers double-jabbed. Then it'll be booster shots completed.
(b) Proper ventilation in schools, which sounds nice but in practice is unrealistic I would think. It reminds me of opponents to my local low traffic neighbourhood instead proposing a tramline being built through Lewisham. Whatever your views on LTNs, that's not a realistic alternative proposal, nice as it might be.
Unfortunately, a lot of them seem to have terrible friends, who would rather attack their own leadership, rather than the PM.
Dreadful choice of friends.
Let me give you an example. If there was a referendum on the death penalty, and it came back in favor, then it would be the duty of the government to implement it, by passing the appropriate laws.
It would not be appropriate for government to instruct judges to start sentencing people to death before the law had been changed.
He seems very unlikely to win, but even if he does he's not a nutter, and as such is very rarified in the Labour nonsense.
Starmer is not going to do well at the Labour conference. (He'll get cheered to the rafters of course, but he'll be a net loser)
It is definitely time to remove the mandatory element from mask-wearing, social distancing and so on and let people decide for themselves what risks they want to take. Individual responsibility and all that.
I'll still wear a FFP3 mask for certain things for the time being but why should that bother anyone else?
It's what I don't get about anti-vaxxers - why make such a song and dance about it? Nobody is forcing you to be vaccinated and, frankly, nobody cares if you don't get vaccinated. Your choice but no point whinging about it if other countries won't allow the unvaxxed in
The government has steadfastly refused to reveal information on vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats. I think it would be extremely revealing and smash the case for any continued measures.
However I do believe that many anti-vaxxers might just be those who are vociferous in complaining about people wearing the niqab. Just a hunch.
Half a dozen unvaccinated passengers in... say... Newham on a bus can easily result in a very high viral load.
Not such a big deal for passengers who get on and off, but a big deal for bus drivers, who will spend six or seven hours a day on a bus.
And - one would suspect - the efficacy of vaccines drops with the viral load one receives.
Now I look at what MPs have to put up with and think its really just not worth the hassle.
Let me give an example. I was involved in an environmental campaign (conservation of a heritage site) and I discovered that the guy leading it was a current member of the British National Party (a dissident member leaked the membership list). He'd never expressed any racist or nationalist views in our discussions (though perhaps his nationalism had a shared root with his love of old buildings, who knows?), and he wasn't seeking elected office. I continued to work with him, and never even mentioned it. We completed the campaign, he went on to do other stuff, and so far as I know he never misused his experience or his association with me.
You feel I should have witch-hunted him out? Just because someone has views I disagree with, I won't hold it against them in another context unless they misuse them. Otherwise it's McCarthyism/Lysenkoism, and wrong for the same reason as that was.
And as for balance, well, communists are part of our spectrum of opinions too, as if you want a balanced spectrum you'd need to include them. But I'd really rather not bother with scientists' political opinions at all, and judge them by their work.
Gavin Williamson will unveil our plans.
Hmm.
They watch them on tv, and the public have had ample opportunity to do that