Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 17% tell ORB’s latest virus tracker that the “situation i

SystemSystem Posts: 12,622
edited April 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 17% tell ORB’s latest virus tracker that the “situation is under control”

Latest virus tracker from ORB finds just 17% saying that the situation is "under control". Not good for the government. pic.twitter.com/PRR3UyJU0Y

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Do we predict more austerity?

    God alone knows.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,080
    Who are these people? Clearly it's not under control and probably won't be for a very long time if ever.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,265
    I'm not sure it matters. There is no election in sight. At some point the virus will be under control and then we can all agree Boris has saved us.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    It isn't under control - here and in other countries
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,266
    The idea that the public would think a government can control a virus made me laugh into my evening honey and lemon.....
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,687
    Surely it's us that are under control, not the virus.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    It isn’t under control. The government has a problem.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    Mortimer said:

    The idea that the public would think a government can control a virus made me laugh into my evening honey and lemon.....

    You can stop laughing. I think you will find a gentleman in the United States is convinced his public think his Government are in the process of controlling the virus.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,610
    edited April 2020
    "under control" means a vaccine. Or at least, a test for Covid-19 antibodies coupled with confirmation that you can't catch it a second time.

    Not under control is not the same as out of control. The creation of the Nightingale hospitals and the gradual reductions in ICU admissions at least give an impression that we will not now face "out of control". No lonely deaths on trolleys in hospital corridors. Once we know with certainty that we have defeated "out of control", we can consider phased removal of lockdown.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    Don't worry about that just yet. Survival is far more important.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    Don't worry about that just yet. Survival is far more important.
    But do you?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Jonathan said:

    It isn’t under control. The government has a problem.

    Hate to break it to you

    The world has a huge problem
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Mortimer said:

    The idea that the public would think a government can control a virus made me laugh into my evening honey and lemon.....

    Quite
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    edited April 2020
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    Don't worry about that just yet. Survival is far more important.
    But do you?
    For the moment I am much more concerned with my little unit making it out of all this. If the trade off is a moratorium on General Elections and a 30 year plus Sine Die Boris government, I'll take it.

    For what its worth the handling of the epidemic is the least of the Government's problems. The out of their control financial aftermath will do for them if anything does.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,226
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1251183938053292033?s=20
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    It isn’t under control. The government has a problem.

    Hate to break it to you

    The world has a huge problem
    How very 2008.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,080
    Sky News reporting that the police want more protection. Somehow I don't think the public will be quite as sympathetic towards them.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sanchez said on Saturday he would ask parliament for a third 15-day extension of the lockdown imposed to curb one of the world’s worst outbreaks of the new coronavirus, taking the restrictions up to 9 May.

    Sanchez said he wanted to relax restrictions on children, who would be allowed out of their homes after 27 April, though that allowance would be “limited and subject to conditions to avoid contagion”. He did not go into further details.

    Spain has begun to ease a strict lockdown imposed on 14 March and this week opened up some sectors of the economy, including manufacturing. But most people are still confined to their houses except for essential outings including shopping for food.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1251183938053292033?s=20
    CorrectHorse's question was 'will' Labour break through, not what is the current level of government approval, which as you demonstrate is declining.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    On the other hand....

    US president Donald Trump said on Saturday that Texas and Vermont will allow certain businesses to reopen on Monday while still observing coronavirus-related precautions and Montana will begin lifting restrictions on Friday.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1251628582352220160?s=20
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    I was looking for a bit more, why do you say that?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,226
    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    Floater said:

    On the other hand....

    US president Donald Trump said on Saturday that Texas and Vermont will allow certain businesses to reopen on Monday while still observing coronavirus-related precautions and Montana will begin lifting restrictions on Friday.

    A decision based on science or divine intervention?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    Erhhhhh, does anyone want to tell him?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1251183938053292033?s=20
    CorrectHorse's question was 'will' Labour break through, not what is the current level of government approval, which as you demonstrate is declining.
    By definition if the government approval rating declines it is likely the official opposition's rating will increase
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    I suspect your explanation has been appreciated.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Jonathan said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    It isn’t under control. The government has a problem.

    Hate to break it to you

    The world has a huge problem
    How very 2008.
    Yeah it started in America err China
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    tlg86 said:

    Sky News reporting that the police want more protection. Somehow I don't think the public will be quite as sympathetic towards them.

    There's probably not enough PPE on Earth to satisfy the demands of all the frightened people in Britain who now want it.

    Health and social care workers must be prioritised for the limited supplies available. Everybody else will simply have to take their chances.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,226
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1251183938053292033?s=20
    CorrectHorse's question was 'will' Labour break through, not what is the current level of government approval, which as you demonstrate is declining.
    By definition if the government approval rating declines it is likely the official opposition's rating will increase
    As you know we are in peculiar times.

    If Boris were to call a GE right now he could double his majority. You also know that come 2024 the landscape could be very different. Not least if the economic situation unravels, and that even through no fault of the incumbent Government.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,089
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    eadric said:

    OllyT said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    rottenborough said:

    Socky said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.

    When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).

    So the question is: is 70c enough?
    Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
    you did.

    Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:

    The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.

    Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.

    The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.

    After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
    The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.

    The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.

    “The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.

    ---
    "it's a bit more complicated than that"
    Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
    As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.

    We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
    It could be never.

    We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus, eg the common cold
    We have never found a vaccine for SARs either but the WHO declared it contained in summer 2003
    SARS only killed 774 people worldwide.

    888 people died of Covid-19 just in the UK today.
    More people have died of one of the strains of flu than have yet died of Covid 19, life goes on, the focus should be on containment until a vaccine can be found
    Other strains of flu have been around for decades. The current death toll, massively under reported is in 5 months. Plus the problem is much more than just about numbers of deaths.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 244
    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    Starmer is not keeping a 'corbynite' agenda. The shadow cabinet appointments and Starmer's own sentiment is far from Corbyn left.
    We have lived in a decade of very poor opposition and some questionable centre right regimes have muddled through due to this.
    Maybe if it ever gets back to normal the alternate reality may play out with Starmer's sensible centre left being seen as a cosy alternative to the current crop.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    eadric said:

    OllyT said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    rottenborough said:

    Socky said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.

    When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).

    So the question is: is 70c enough?
    Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
    you did.

    Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:

    The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.

    Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.

    The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.

    After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
    The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.

    The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.

    “The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.

    ---
    "it's a bit more complicated than that"
    Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
    As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.

    We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
    It could be never.

    We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus, eg the common cold
    We have never found a vaccine for SARs either but the WHO declared it contained in summer 2003
    SARS only killed 774 people worldwide.

    888 people died of Covid-19 just in the UK today.
    More people have died of one of the strains of flu than have yet died of Covid 19, life goes on, the focus should be on containment until a vaccine can be found
    Other strains of flu have been around for decades. The current death toll, massively under reported is in 5 months. Plus the problem is much more than just about numbers of deaths.
    He just ignores the havoc it wrecks on health systems and their staff.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    eadric said:

    OllyT said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    rottenborough said:

    Socky said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.

    When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).

    So the question is: is 70c enough?
    Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
    you did.

    Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:

    The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.

    Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.

    The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.

    After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
    The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.

    The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.

    “The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.

    ---
    "it's a bit more complicated than that"
    Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
    As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.

    We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
    It could be never.

    We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus, eg the common cold
    We have never found a vaccine for SARs either but the WHO declared it contained in summer 2003
    SARS only killed 774 people worldwide.

    888 people died of Covid-19 just in the UK today.
    More people have died of one of the strains of flu than have yet died of Covid 19, life goes on, the focus should be on containment until a vaccine can be found
    Other strains of flu have been around for decades. The current death toll, massively under reported is in 5 months. Plus the problem is much more than just about numbers of deaths.
    Yes but it does give some perspective.

    Former plagues in this country like Spanish flu, the Great Plague of the 1660s or Black Death also had a far higher death rate than Covid 19 and we did not have the lockdown capacity or testing capacity then we have now nor the ability to find a vaccine
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Black_Rook said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sky News reporting that the police want more protection. Somehow I don't think the public will be quite as sympathetic towards them.

    There's probably not enough PPE on Earth to satisfy the demands of all the frightened people in Britain who now want it.

    Health and social care workers must be prioritised for the limited supplies available. Everybody else will simply have to take their chances.
    Perhaps plod shouldn't stand around in large fucking groups or bothering individuals on the street -

    I saw one case where a bunch of them kicked someones front door in as there had been allegations of him having a party .........
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,985
    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1251183938053292033?s=20
    CorrectHorse's question was 'will' Labour break through, not what is the current level of government approval, which as you demonstrate is declining.
    By definition if the government approval rating declines it is likely the official opposition's rating will increase
    "By definition"?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,226
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
    I think post covid there will be no room for tax and spend policies, we will be taxed heavily just to stand still and I think that will lead to pressure for the government to do less rather than raise taxes further. Note I am just as anti tory as I am anti labour. Personally I think our only way out is to completely restructure our political system and I mean much more radically than changing the voting system.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
    I think post covid there will be no room for tax and spend policies, we will be taxed heavily just to stand still and I think that will lead to pressure for the government to do less rather than raise taxes further. Note I am just as anti tory as I am anti labour. Personally I think our only way out is to completely restructure our political system and I mean much more radically than changing the voting system.
    I am a social democrat - and was much more in line with the 2017 manifesto than the 2019, which I thought was far too extreme and cranky. I became anti-Labour when Corbyn didn't leave straight after that massive loss.

    I hope Labour supports PR and allies - perhaps unofficially - with the Lib Dems.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Public to be told to wear masks on public transport.

    I wonder if this will remain long after COVID-19 is immunised against.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
    I would watch this space, there might be a number of people eating humble pie this time next year. At the moment I am not entirely sure who those posters will be.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Public to be told to wear masks on public transport.

    I wonder if this will remain long after COVID-19 is immunised against.

    I think it could do - I am certainly thinking about it for when I need to commute again

    Of course I will also be asking to work from home more than I was pre lockdown.
  • BantermanBanterman Posts: 287
    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    You clearly haven't been watching BBC News.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,226
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
    I think post covid there will be no room for tax and spend policies, we will be taxed heavily just to stand still and I think that will lead to pressure for the government to do less rather than raise taxes further. Note I am just as anti tory as I am anti labour. Personally I think our only way out is to completely restructure our political system and I mean much more radically than changing the voting system.
    I am a social democrat - and was much more in line with the 2017 manifesto than the 2019, which I thought was far too extreme and cranky. I became anti-Labour when Corbyn didn't leave straight after that massive loss.

    I hope Labour supports PR and allies - perhaps unofficially - with the Lib Dems.
    PR is an abomination and shouldn't be countenanced for the simple reason that PR in effect means you don't know what you are voting for and the coalition partners only work out what their manifesto is after they have your vote.

    I for example gave cameron the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't like the direction he was heading and voted tory...if I had known what the coalition was going to decide to keep and drop I would not have voted for it.

    I suspect that the tory commitment in 2015 to a referendum was not actually meant to be implemented but was there to trade away in coalition negotiations with the lib dems. That sadly though happens whereever you get pr electoral systems. It is rank dishonesty
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    Propaganda?

    Do you mean reporting the facts.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    Yes Rupert is certainly anti-Tory
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
    I would watch this space, there might be a number of people eating humble pie this time next year. At the moment I am not entirely sure who those posters will be.
    Well, the Tories lead by 10 points until Black Wednesday
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
    I would watch this space, there might be a number of people eating humble pie this time next year. At the moment I am not entirely sure who those posters will be.
    Well, the Tories lead by 10 points until Black Wednesday
    I thought without Corbyn Lab would have been 25% ahead?
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    Floater said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    eadric said:

    OllyT said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    rottenborough said:

    Socky said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.

    When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).

    So the question is: is 70c enough?
    Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
    you did.

    Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:

    The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.

    Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.

    The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.

    After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
    The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.

    The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.

    “The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.

    ---
    "it's a bit more complicated than that"
    Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
    As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.

    We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
    It could be never.

    We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus, eg the common cold
    We have never found a vaccine for SARs either but the WHO declared it contained in summer 2003
    SARS only killed 774 people worldwide.

    888 people died of Covid-19 just in the UK today.
    More people have died of one of the strains of flu than have yet died of Covid 19, life goes on, the focus should be on containment until a vaccine can be found
    Other strains of flu have been around for decades. The current death toll, massively under reported is in 5 months. Plus the problem is much more than just about numbers of deaths.
    He just ignores the havoc it wrecks on health systems and their staff.
    Some people seem more susceptible to CV19 than others. If that cohort can be precisely defined it may be instructive in combating it. As things stand, the at risk cohort seems to be elderly, frail, BAME perhaps with mixed generation, crowded households. The more successful CV19 is the less the elderly, frail cohort there is available to it. This seems to me to be a difficult truth for open discussion but shouldn't be. I tend to that cohort.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,573
    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    eadric said:

    OllyT said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    rottenborough said:

    Socky said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.

    When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).

    So the question is: is 70c enough?
    Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
    you did.

    Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:

    The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.

    Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.

    The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.

    After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
    The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.

    The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.

    “The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.

    ---
    "it's a bit more complicated than that"
    Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
    As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.

    We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
    It could be never.

    We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus, eg the common cold
    We have never found a vaccine for SARs either but the WHO declared it contained in summer 2003
    SARS only killed 774 people worldwide.

    888 people died of Covid-19 just in the UK today.
    More people have died of one of the strains of flu than have yet died of Covid 19, life goes on, the focus should be on containment until a vaccine can be found
    Other strains of flu have been around for decades. The current death toll, massively under reported is in 5 months. Plus the problem is much more than just about numbers of deaths.
    Yes but it does give some perspective.

    Former plagues in this country like Spanish flu, the Great Plague of the 1660s or Black Death also had a far higher death rate than Covid 19 and we did not have the lockdown capacity or testing capacity then we have now nor the ability to find a vaccine
    I don't think that we are as reconciled to mass death via the fickle finger of infectious disease as our great grandparents were.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
    I would watch this space, there might be a number of people eating humble pie this time next year. At the moment I am not entirely sure who those posters will be.
    Well, the Tories lead by 10 points until Black Wednesday
    Black wednesday will be like a Sunday School outing compared to what comes next.

    I am really not sure who the net gainers will be. Instinctively I don't think I would want to be the government of the day holding this particular post-pandemic baby.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,857
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Public to be told to wear masks on public transport.

    I wonder if this will remain long after COVID-19 is immunised against.

    Why do you think it may last longer than that?
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    I don't think Starmer scares as many people as Corbyn did. But I agree your view on Scotland.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    bigjohnowls said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
    I would watch this space, there might be a number of people eating humble pie this time next year. At the moment I am not entirely sure who those posters will be.
    Well, the Tories lead by 10 points until Black Wednesday
    I thought without Corbyn Lab would have been 25% ahead?
    I certainly did not say that.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
    There is an inherent danger for Labour in accepting anything from the SNP that involves an IndyRef2. That isn't going to be an easy sell.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
    The Maths didn't work out in 2010 though?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,080
    Naughty front page from The Sunday Mirror:

    https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1251608981581246474
  • humbuggerhumbugger Posts: 377
    Mexicanpete said:

    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    You clearly haven't been watching BBC News.
    Oh come off it. The media has been relentlessly negative about the government's response to the virus.Given the media coverage it's miraculous the government's ratings are above zero.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
    I think post covid there will be no room for tax and spend policies, we will be taxed heavily just to stand still and I think that will lead to pressure for the government to do less rather than raise taxes further. Note I am just as anti tory as I am anti labour. Personally I think our only way out is to completely restructure our political system and I mean much more radically than changing the voting system.
    I am a social democrat - and was much more in line with the 2017 manifesto than the 2019, which I thought was far too extreme and cranky. I became anti-Labour when Corbyn didn't leave straight after that massive loss.

    I hope Labour supports PR and allies - perhaps unofficially - with the Lib Dems.
    PR is an abomination and shouldn't be countenanced for the simple reason that PR in effect means you don't know what you are voting for and the coalition partners only work out what their manifesto is after they have your vote.

    I for example gave cameron the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't like the direction he was heading and voted tory...if I had known what the coalition was going to decide to keep and drop I would not have voted for it.

    I suspect that the tory commitment in 2015 to a referendum was not actually meant to be implemented but was there to trade away in coalition negotiations with the lib dems. That sadly though happens whereever you get pr electoral systems. It is rank dishonesty
    I completely agree on your final point, I am sure that is why it was there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Labour lost in 2019 because Corbyn was crap, the Brexit position was rubbish and people thought Johnson would get Brexit done.

    I voted for Starmer specifically to kick the Corbynites out.

    Well done!
    Thank you.

    I think it is important to admit when one is wrong.
    I would watch this space, there might be a number of people eating humble pie this time next year. At the moment I am not entirely sure who those posters will be.
    Well, the Tories lead by 10 points until Black Wednesday
    Actually by August 1992 Mori had John Smith's Labour Party on 44% to 38% for Major's Tories already and Gallup had Labour ahead 45% to 40.5% for the Tories
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    bigjohnowls said:

    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    Propaganda?

    Do you mean reporting the facts.
    Commenting on data
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    edited April 2020
    alterego said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    I don't think Starmer scares as many people as Corbyn did. But I agree your view on Scotland.
    Very much so, but I think regaining anything at all in Scotland would be a big ask.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    What is unquestionably true is that the Tories are deeply unpopular in Scotland and might lose more seats next time around.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,857
    I hate the idea of wearing a mask but I'll do it during the crisis. But I don't know why anyone would want to wear one for any longer than necessary.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,640
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    What is unquestionably true is that the Tories are deeply unpopular in Scotland and might lose more seats next time around.

    What's new? :D
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    bigjohnowls said:

    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    Propaganda?

    Do you mean reporting the facts.
    There is little unsensationalised reporting and a scarcity of facts
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    eadric said:

    Scotland is hard to call. Indy is over for the next 5 years minimum. Probably 10. It is an impossible risk to sell in a time of global desperation and deficit.

    The SNP are also rife with internal conflict which will break out as the plague recedes. Salmond will have his revenge.

    But who benefits? Scottish Labour and Tories are flailing.

    Holyrood 2021 could be interestingly messy

    Assuming that it is deemed safe enough to hold an election next May.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    humbugger said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    You clearly haven't been watching BBC News.
    Oh come off it. The media has been relentlessly negative about the government's response to the virus.Given the media coverage it's miraculous the government's ratings are above zero.
    Where is this Rupert Murdoch-free parallel universe of which you speak?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Mexicanpete said:

    alterego said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    I don't think Starmer scares as many people as Corbyn did. But I agree your view on Scotland.
    Very much so., but I think regaining anything at all in Scotland would be a big ask.
    To be fair Corbyn gained seats there in 2017, I think Starmer could regain three or four.

    I am still of the view he aims more for the former Lib Dem/Remain Tory vote as opposed to the "traditional" Labour vote but that's just me
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,226
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
    I think post covid there will be no room for tax and spend policies, we will be taxed heavily just to stand still and I think that will lead to pressure for the government to do less rather than raise taxes further. Note I am just as anti tory as I am anti labour. Personally I think our only way out is to completely restructure our political system and I mean much more radically than changing the voting system.
    I am a social democrat - and was much more in line with the 2017 manifesto than the 2019, which I thought was far too extreme and cranky. I became anti-Labour when Corbyn didn't leave straight after that massive loss.

    I hope Labour supports PR and allies - perhaps unofficially - with the Lib Dems.
    PR is an abomination and shouldn't be countenanced for the simple reason that PR in effect means you don't know what you are voting for and the coalition partners only work out what their manifesto is after they have your vote.

    I for example gave cameron the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't like the direction he was heading and voted tory...if I had known what the coalition was going to decide to keep and drop I would not have voted for it.

    I suspect that the tory commitment in 2015 to a referendum was not actually meant to be implemented but was there to trade away in coalition negotiations with the lib dems. That sadly though happens whereever you get pr electoral systems. It is rank dishonesty
    I completely agree on your final point, I am sure that is why it was there.
    It was merely a concrete example of what I was talking about in my second paragraph.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1251622760415203328?s=19
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Andy_JS said:

    I hate the idea of wearing a mask but I'll do it during the crisis. But I don't know why anyone would want to wear one for any longer than necessary.

    Because this will not be over any time soon
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    eadric said:

    OllyT said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    rottenborough said:

    Socky said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.

    When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).

    So the question is: is 70c enough?
    Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
    you did.

    Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:

    The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.

    Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.

    The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.

    After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19.
    The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.

    The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.

    The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.

    “The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.

    ---
    "it's a bit more complicated than that"
    Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
    As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.

    We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
    It could be never.

    We have never found a vaccine for a human coronavirus, eg the common cold
    We have never found a vaccine for SARs either but the WHO declared it contained in summer 2003
    SARS only killed 774 people worldwide.

    888 people died of Covid-19 just in the UK today.
    More people have died of one of the strains of flu than have yet died of Covid 19, life goes on, the focus should be on containment until a vaccine can be found
    Other strains of flu have been around for decades. The current death toll, massively under reported is in 5 months. Plus the problem is much more than just about numbers of deaths.
    Yes but it does give some perspective.

    Former plagues in this country like Spanish flu, the Great Plague of the 1660s or Black Death also had a far higher death rate than Covid 19 and we did not have the lockdown capacity or testing capacity then we have now nor the ability to find a vaccine
    I don't think that we are as reconciled to mass death via the fickle finger of infectious disease as our great grandparents were.
    Can you define mass death for me, perhaps put a number on it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
    There is an inherent danger for Labour in accepting anything from the SNP that involves an IndyRef2. That isn't going to be an easy sell.
    Which is why it would be better for Starmer to pick up some SNP seats in Scotland so he only needs LD not SNP support
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    I don't support the 2019 manifesto though, I don't know if you've been following my posts but I shunned Corbyn and held my hands up after the election. I called for a return to the centre and I called the 2019 manifesto crap, as I recall.

    I haven't scapegoated anyone, I think the report that has been released is deeply suspect in its timing and I treat it with great scepticism. I have said all of this...

    I got the impression you were a supporter before the election and didn't follow PB for a while after so I may have missed your epiphany
    I was - but I am sure many can attest I held my hands up to being wrong and I have sought to say that whenever it is brought up.

    I am following the polling, Starmer was the best candidate in the running from all the objective data and because I believed he'd make a break with Corbynism.

    I would dump most of the 2019 and 2017 manifestos bar railway nationalisation and investment in the economy.
    I think post covid there will be no room for tax and spend policies, we will be taxed heavily just to stand still and I think that will lead to pressure for the government to do less rather than raise taxes further. Note I am just as anti tory as I am anti labour. Personally I think our only way out is to completely restructure our political system and I mean much more radically than changing the voting system.
    I am a social democrat - and was much more in line with the 2017 manifesto than the 2019, which I thought was far too extreme and cranky. I became anti-Labour when Corbyn didn't leave straight after that massive loss.

    I hope Labour supports PR and allies - perhaps unofficially - with the Lib Dems.
    PR is an abomination and shouldn't be countenanced for the simple reason that PR in effect means you don't know what you are voting for and the coalition partners only work out what their manifesto is after they have your vote.

    I for example gave cameron the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't like the direction he was heading and voted tory...if I had known what the coalition was going to decide to keep and drop I would not have voted for it.

    I suspect that the tory commitment in 2015 to a referendum was not actually meant to be implemented but was there to trade away in coalition negotiations with the lib dems. That sadly though happens whereever you get pr electoral systems. It is rank dishonesty
    I completely agree on your final point, I am sure that is why it was there.
    It was merely a concrete example of what I was talking about in my second paragraph.
    No no, I mean I am sure that is why the referendum was in the manifesto. Apologies for being unclear.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
    The Maths didn't work out in 2010 though?
    With SNP, Plaid and Green confidence and supply it did
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,640
    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I hate the idea of wearing a mask but I'll do it during the crisis. But I don't know why anyone would want to wear one for any longer than necessary.

    Because this will not be over any time soon
    People won't be so cautious forever though.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
    The Maths didn't work out in 2010 though?
    With SNP, Plaid and Green confidence and supply it did
    It needed the DUP as well.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    tlg86 said:

    Naughty front page from The Sunday Mirror:

    https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1251608981581246474

    Desperate for sales but that's no excuse
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    alterego said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    I don't think Starmer scares as many people as Corbyn did. But I agree your view on Scotland.
    Very much so., but I think regaining anything at all in Scotland would be a big ask.
    To be fair Corbyn gained seats there in 2017, I think Starmer could regain three or four.

    I am still of the view he aims more for the former Lib Dem/Remain Tory vote as opposed to the "traditional" Labour vote but that's just me
    Indeed. Brexit voting blue collar voters in the North of England may still prove problematic. Although the pandemic could change everything. What it changes remains anyone's guess.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,501
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    What is unquestionably true is that the Tories are deeply unpopular in Scotland and might lose more seats next time around.

    Unlikely, the Tories still got 25% last December, in 2016 at Holyrood they only got 22% so are likely to pick up a few seats under PR
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    edited April 2020
    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    Yes, though I think he might pick up a few seats there. However if he gets to 270+ seats he would probably have enough seats to form a government with LD and SNP support even if still short of a majority.

    Although the LDs ruled out a deal with Corbyn remember had Labour dumped Brown for David Miliband soon after the 2010 election it is not impossible the coalition then could have been Labour and LD not Tory and LD
    There is an inherent danger for Labour in accepting anything from the SNP that involves an IndyRef2. That isn't going to be an easy sell.
    Which is why it would be better for Starmer to pick up some SNP seats in Scotland so he only needs LD not SNP support
    True, but unlikely to pick up SNP seats.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    humbugger said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Banterman said:

    Government ratings doing very well given the endless anti government propaganda from most of the broadcast media

    You clearly haven't been watching BBC News.
    Oh come off it. The media has been relentlessly negative about the government's response to the virus.Given the media coverage it's miraculous the government's ratings are above zero.
    Wise after the event is the starting position for the myopic media each vying to outdo the competition
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Mexicanpete said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    alterego said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    I don't think Starmer scares as many people as Corbyn did. But I agree your view on Scotland.
    Very much so., but I think regaining anything at all in Scotland would be a big ask.
    To be fair Corbyn gained seats there in 2017, I think Starmer could regain three or four.

    I am still of the view he aims more for the former Lib Dem/Remain Tory vote as opposed to the "traditional" Labour vote but that's just me
    Indeed. Brexit voting blue collar voters in the North of England may still prove problematic. Although the pandemic could change everything. What it changes remains anyone's guess.
    You see indications in 2019 of that changing Labour vote. Kensington seems a good bet to win back, that was never Labour in the past. I am sure there are more seats like that in London and the South.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Bl
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    eadric said:

    alterego said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Be interested to see Government approval and whether there is any change.

    Will Labour ever break through?

    The answer is no
    A really thoughtful and insightful analysis if you don't mind me saying.
    Well CHB believes in what the labour party currently stands for and the 2019 manifesto. It has been explained on here countless times that this country is not ready to accept such a manifesto but people like CHB choose to find other scapegoats...it was the labour right wing infighting....it was Corbyn that was unpopular. Only so many times you can say people don't really want such a manifesto before it gets tiring.

    Starmer has committed to keep to the Corbynite style manifesto therefore Labour remain a voting irrelevance for most of the country. I merely gave him the brief answer as it would be a waste of breath to say more
    He has removed certain things like the ending of private education and shifted towards a more pro single market approach and taken a tougher line on anti Semitism.

    However yes it is unlikely he will get a majority on his current platform, if he becomes PM it will likely be propped up by the LDs with Ed Davey pushing him in a more centrist direction
    Without Scotland Starmer can whistle for a majority, and he won't get one. That doesn't mean to say other alternatives are not available.
    I don't think Starmer scares as many people as Corbyn did. But I agree your view on Scotland.
    Scotland is hard to call. Indy is over for the next 5 years minimum. Probably 10. It is an impossible risk to sell in a time of global desperation and deficit.

    The SNP are also rife with internal conflict which will break out as the plague recedes. Salmond will have his revenge.

    But who benefits? Scottish Labour and Tories are flailing.

    Holyrood 2021 could be interestingly messy
    Listening to my Scottish Labour friends, they are getting ever more pessimistic but it's a very narrow sample proportionately
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I hate the idea of wearing a mask but I'll do it during the crisis. But I don't know why anyone would want to wear one for any longer than necessary.

    Because this will not be over any time soon
    People won't be so cautious forever though.
    They have done in Japan, so it remains a possibility.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,469
    eadric said:

    If Twitter is anything like Britain (a quite enormous IF) then Boris is fucked.

    Why?
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025