politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Expectations of an easing are running high and Boris looks set
Options
Comments
-
Oh yeah, that's a decent point, but I didn't get that far, and it's got nothing to do with the main issue. But on the first bit, I think he's entirely wrong: it's much more sensible for the papers to focus on the judgment of one of the Government's lead advisors than to obsess over round numbers and inappropriate international comparisons. Albeit that they may be doing it for the wrong reasons.kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.0 -
Did you notice HYUFD fails to remember that Mr Darling reduced the Unionist vote from 75% or so to 55%? Edit: the pro-indy vote was about 25% at the start of the campaign, but in fairness to Mr D I can't remember when he actually took over, so I may be unfair to him, actually. But he point that the unionist vote went down is correct.Alistair said:
Mate.HYUFD said:
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs0 -
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.0 -
The focus on Better Together and more devolution as well as the economic warnings was effective.DavidL said:
I played a very active part in that campaign. It was awful. Darling could not really bring himself to say anything good about the UK because it was led by the Coalition. He was entirely negative in his approach, characterised by the SNP as the "too wee, too stupid" argument. They had a point. His performance in the debates against Salmond really scared me, I thought he had lost.HYUFD said:
No won with 55% of the vote in 2014, if it had ran as crap a campaign as Remain did in 2016 it would have lostAlistair said:
I don't know what you are talking about David. Better Together was a colossus of a campaign, heroically reducing Scotland's natural 90% support for Indy down to a mere 45%. It is a blueprint for how all political campaigning should be performed.DavidL said:
He came seriously close to losing the Indyref.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
...
Sorry, I blacked out and Duncan Hothersall took over my body there.
Only Ruth Davidson with a bit of Gordon Brown towards the end was British and genuinely proud of it. Only the good sense of the Scottish people saved the Union.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
In referendum terms 55% to 45% is a solid win0 -
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.0 -
Trying to hold the enquir(es) will tell us quite a lot.rkrkrk said:
This feels comically unlikely.stodge said:
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
On past performance, if permanent officials were involved, the obstruction of the enquiry holding process will be illuminating, just by itself.
0 -
I disagree. There's novel viruses regularly. If we go 'as precautionary as possible' we'd be trashing our economy all the time for no good reason.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Balance is key in anything.2 -
Some Chopin from a friend of mine - for those needing a reminder that life is more than hiding from a virus - https://youtu.be/gb-1hFPEz8o0
-
So what, Scottish Nationalism was always going to get 40%+ in reality, the SNP already got about 45% in 2011.Carnyx said:
Did you notice HYUFD fails to remember that Mr Darling reduced the Unionist vote from 75% or so to 55%? Edit: the pro-indy vote was about 25% at the start of the campaign, but in fairness to Mr D I can't remember when he actually took over, so I may be unfair to him, actually. But he point that the unionist vote went down is correct.Alistair said:
Mate.HYUFD said:
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
No in the end however defeated it as Remain was not able to defeat British Nationalism in 20160 -
If people want independence they will vote SNP or a new Nat party, if Scottish Labour backed independence it would just lose its Unionist votemalcolmg said:
Up to your usual Scottish lack of knowledge. Miliband had nothing to do with other than being the dupe to follow tweedledee and tweedledum. Their supporting the Tories against the interests of Scotland was what did for them. They have no chance of any return until they realise that they are supposed to be a Scottish party and support independence, plus change almost every donkey they currently have as MSP's.HYUFD said:
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs0 -
Seconded.kyf_100 said:
Wishing you all the best, Nichomar.nichomar said:I’m back suffice to say diarrhea and chemo still in hospital so won’t bore everybody
I just had my third not-in-hospital appointment, and now have 2 visits planned for the next 8 weeks. So they are back in business to an extent, and it is all quite quiet at our place.
One of those will be moderately invasive - knitting needle in the thigh to get some bonemarrow out. Apparently it hurts slightly.0 -
I'm not criticising you for criticising the government. I agreed with someone else saying partisanship should be dropped and you disagreed with that.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.0 -
I seem to remember a story that as the troops crossed the channel on D-Day there was a noticeable migration movement of these moths going the other way. Insect migration is much less noticeable than that of birds but equally fascinating.MarqueeMark said:Moth du Jour: Hummingbird Hawkmoth. A migrant from Europe, they are a not infrequent visitor to our gardens.
0 -
Another article in the MSM which appears to have been inspired (the phrase “a carbon copy” might also be used) by a header on here.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/is-it-time-to-let-winston-churchill-go-ldmbbx3wf
OGH should be getting contributions from the Times to PB.0 -
The story will be the same reality the world over - however that doesn't allow you to blame the UK Government so the story the reality is ignored.Malmesbury said:
A german friend says that his medical line relatives are fuming about the PPE situation there. Apparently a tale of shortages, purchases of stuff that failed quality control, distribution problems...Endillion said:Oh dear. Turkish PPE no better than the Chinese equivalent:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52569364
Incidentally, anyone know if the much-vaunted EU scheme has managed to find any equipment yet? All gone very quiet on that front...
Edit: hijacking my own post to share this, which I've not seen posted here yet:
https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
No idea if the data is actually useful to anyone, but lots of pretty graphs.
The EU scheme is considered to be one of those ponderous programs that will arrive. One day. As opposed to someone going to Wurth directly.1 -
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.1 -
There never has been an enquiry that was truly "open". There are always parameters in there somewhere. Eg the Iraq war enquiry with its "terms of reference"rkrkrk said:
This feels comically unlikely.stodge said:
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.0 -
Mr. Nichomar, hope you get well soon.0
-
Indeed. We knew that viruses spread exponentially. We knew that the Chinese had gone to extreme lengths to contain it. We knew that it was spreading rapidly in Italy. And yet Boris still dithered. It's absolutely unforgivable.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.0 -
Can I link to a memo from the government asking for the papers to lead with a massive photo of Ferguson's girlfriend rather than our Covid-19 death toll becoming the highest in Europe?Philip_Thompson said:
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Let me have a root around. I'll be back.0 -
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?2 -
Thanks for the good wishes. It’s striking how nothing has changed on here in two and a half weeks. I might one day feel up to writing about being behind the covid front line while not a sufferer.0
-
Thanks. Let me know when you are back.kinabalu said:
Can I link to a memo from the government asking for the papers to lead with a massive photo of Ferguson's girlfriend rather than our Covid-19 death toll becoming the highest in Europe?Philip_Thompson said:
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Let me have a root around. I'll be back.
Again feat toll being highest in Europe is nonsense unless you look per capita (Belgium are worse) or like for like with accurate stats (Italy and Spain are worse)0 -
BT announce it has cancelled it dividends for 2020 and 2021
The widescale cancellation of company dividends is going to cause havoc in the pension industry and beyond
There is justification for being critical of the government and errors have been made.
However, no amount of anger at HMG or Boris is going to change the place we are at and Boris has 4 years in front of him before facing the electorate
The newspapers are all over the place but it is clear the right leaning ones want an immediate lifting of lockdown and back to normal in a few weeks, in some way like Trump
Others are more cautious with every justification, and Andy Burnham on Sky this morning was very mature when interviewed by Burley saying the north are two weeks behind London, and like Nicola Sturgeon, cautions against early release of lockdown. He also rebuked Burley over the testing numbers saying he was grateful the 100,000 target had effectively seen a huge increase in tests
The Turkey gown debacle is a result of ministers making a silly premature announcement but to be fair it is good they have impounded them. Of course Burley had the answer that the consignment should have been approved before the aircraft took off from Turkey.
So Burley expects each consigment of PPE coming into the UK needs prior certification by UK authorities before loading and takeoff. Really
I like Burnham and he is a loss to the national labour party and Nicola is also doing well. The less said about Drakeford in Wales though the better
I hope Boris's announcement shows respect for those who urge caution but also moves a little way to easing the lockdown. He has a difficult balancing act
1 -
She broke the law by travelling across London without a reasonable excusekinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
While you're not supposed to have friends round either, I think the regulations are framed such that it is the person going out who is breaking them, and the police have no right to investigate on private premises.0 -
I seem to recall that one of the reasons many Tories 'didn't like' Aneurin Bevan was that he 'led' the Opposition to Churchill during the war, not being afraid to criticise when he thought it appropriate.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not criticising you for criticising the government. I agreed with someone else saying partisanship should be dropped and you disagreed with that.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.0 -
International flights from any region with cases when SARS 1 was going round ?DavidL said:
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Yes.0 -
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
0 -
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.algarkirk said:
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.Mexicanpete said:
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.HYUFD said:
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.ThomasNashe said:
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.rottenborough said:A veritable feast:
General election on BBC:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1258290364831629312
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour0 -
When he announces nothing of the sort I wonder what their front pages will be on Monday?Scott_xP said:0 -
So "100k" (aka 83k) tests on a particular day merits an orgy of positive coverage but going top of the league table on deaths on a particular day merits but a shrug? This sounds to me like highly selective "obsessing over round numbers".Endillion said:
Oh yeah, that's a decent point, but I didn't get that far, and it's got nothing to do with the main issue. But on the first bit, I think he's entirely wrong: it's much more sensible for the papers to focus on the judgment of one of the Government's lead advisors than to obsess over round numbers and inappropriate international comparisons. Albeit that they may be doing it for the wrong reasons.kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.0 -
We live in a globalised world. The damage that would cause would outweigh the benefits by an order of magnitude.Pulpstar said:
International flights from any region with cases when SARS 1 was going round ?DavidL said:
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Yes.
Plus what do we do with the potentially millions of Britons abroad?0 -
Not looking good for you Malc then, as Sturgeon is dithering even more than May didmalcolmg said:
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.algarkirk said:
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.Mexicanpete said:
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.HYUFD said:
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.ThomasNashe said:
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.rottenborough said:A veritable feast:
General election on BBC:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1258290364831629312
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour0 -
If bird flu ever mutates to become easily transmittable between humans without a reduction in its mortality rate the lockdown that ensues will make the current one look like a combination of Cheltenham, Glastonbury and the Olympics combined.DavidL said:
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.0 -
All countries should be trying to learn from other countries successes and failures. We learned the consequences of a collapsing health service from Italy and reacted accordingly. We didn't learn from the devastation of care homes in both Spain and Italy. I think its also legitimate for countries to take some pride in their own achievements, whether that is the ventilator machines built by F1 here or the remarkable successes of SK and Germany. But the idea of British exceptionalism and that others look to us especially for guidance is ridiculous, whoever it comes from.AlastairMeeks said:
This is one of these one-way valves, where it’s fine for the Prime Minister preposterously to claim that “there will be many people looking now at our apparent success”.DavidL said:
The Times really hasn't moved on from the Fog in Channel days, has it?noneoftheabove said:
No the world is looking at their own countries and thinking what to do next. The UK has a very weird narcissistic view of itself, the rest of the world dont spend 70% of time on their own country, 20% thinking about us and 10% thinking about the rest of the world.Scott_xP said:
If people are looking at other countries they are probably looking at US, China, South Korea and Germany for very different reasons.0 -
I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.0
-
Yet to see you ever post anything that was not ra ra ra for Boris and government, you are unable to look at it with an open mind as you are so in thrall to the current Tory government and Boris Johnson in particular.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.0 -
That'd require Boris to go against a compliant pressRochdalePioneers said:
When he announces nothing of the sort I wonder what their front pages will be on Monday?Scott_xP said:0 -
Yes there is.Pulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
0 -
Timing was everything - this virus will still be with us in a years time. The only thing that matters is that the NHS is never overloaded as that leads to serious deaths.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Indeed. We knew that viruses spread exponentially. We knew that the Chinese had gone to extreme lengths to contain it. We knew that it was spreading rapidly in Italy. And yet Boris still dithered. It's absolutely unforgivable.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
I suspect when we look back at things in 2-4 years time the real disastrous decisions haven't been made yet.2 -
Fair enough.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not criticising you for criticising the government. I agreed with someone else saying partisanship should be dropped and you disagreed with that.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:Philip_Thompson said:Cyclefree said:
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.
I don’t always read all the threads so missed your argument with @HYUFD on this.1 -
In terms of where we are on the curve. There are now fewer people in hospital with Covid in London than the North West.Pulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
0 -
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.Andy_Cooke said:I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
0 -
Spot on. He's pissed off that the entire media aren't a bunch of extreme leftist partisans in his own mould.Philip_Thompson said:
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Because that would be, like, freedom, or something...0 -
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.nichomar said:Thanks for the good wishes. It’s striking how nothing has changed on here in two and a half weeks. I might one day feel up to writing about being behind the covid front line while not a sufferer.
0 -
You are being ridiculously partisan.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?0 -
Not sure why, in this day and age, she should be protected. Get involved with a public figure, in a manner that effects their job - you will be publicised, at some point.JohnLilburne said:
She broke the law by travelling across London without a reasonable excusekinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
While you're not supposed to have friends round either, I think the regulations are framed such that it is the person going out who is breaking them, and the police have no right to investigate on private premises.0 -
That is not a team. It is a position on the political spectrum. One can claim that a member of a political party is in a team, but not someone who simply has a consistent political point of view.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?0 -
Letting Cheltenham go ahead is not really a separate issue from the timing of lockdown.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, inclined to agree.
Should've locked down sooner, letting Cheltenham go ahead was a mistake (and many said so at the time).
Do think individual responsibility isn't contracted out to the state, though. Nobody forced people to attend, just as those who've decided to flout the lockdown now are doing so of their own volition.
If you were going to stop Cheltenham (60k or so), you'd definitely want to have stopped people using the tube (5m or so).
In any case, at that point there was an acceptance that most people were going to get this. If you are going to have to lockdown to 'flatten the curve', you probably want at least some cases outside of London or a one size fits all policy becomes difficult. I wonder if the same logic applied to Liverpool?
Now we've apparently pivoted to suppression, it does look like the wrong decision, but only in the context of the new policy.
0 -
Agreed. Winning a GE just before the biggest catastrophe the modern world has witnessed would be a poisoned chalice for any government.stodge said:
This is the bearpit where politically interested people gather to talk politics. Democracy hasn't been suspended and neither have comment, opinion, analysis and scrutiny.Mexicanpete said:
I too am supportive. The fact that the NHS has held up under the strain is a massive plus for the government.
However, if people are dying unnecessarily because of government errors regarding PPE, testing and timing the lockdown to perfection, all need calling out and reviewing to see if and why things did or did not go wrong.
P Tories are bemoaning criticism as partisan, yet when the government wilfully massaged the testing figures, it was a case that Matt had stuck one on the hapless Starmer. Boris, too, yesterday with one eye on his popularity trumped Starmer's excellent PMQ performance by hinting at an end to lockdown. Loads of stupid games are being played by all sides at a time when they shouldn't.
And don't get me started on Hancock slapping down Allin Khan
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
I also accept it was initially a fast developing situation and I will accept genuine mistakes made in the heat of the moment - avoidable with hindsight maybe but that's often the case.
If we had a non-Conservative Government in power now, it would have its defenders and its detractors - that's the nature of the political beast.
I can accept many of the errors as necessary judgement calls that with a little more time might have been called differently. It is the one upmanship I can't abide, and when it goes wrong, lies and subterfuge are used to cover up a genuine error. That probably works both ways, however Hancock's devilish state at Starmer during PMQs suggests he is taking it personally and doesn't like it. That could be seen as sinister, although it could also be that he knows he is the fall guy for the after-Covid political post mortem.0 -
I'm reading the Campbell diaries atm. Seems so long ago now.Malmesbury said:
Well, part of the problem with story-by-chewing-up-press-releases is that you are still writing a story based on the press release. However much you chew. Hence the New Labour realisation of press control - simply embed some nice chewy stories in the press releases and the press will play good dog.kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.0 -
Starmer trying to square the circle with talk of "federalism", whatever that means.HYUFD said:
If people want independence they will vote SNP or a new Nat party, if Scottish Labour backed independence it would just lose its Unionist votemalcolmg said:
Up to your usual Scottish lack of knowledge. Miliband had nothing to do with other than being the dupe to follow tweedledee and tweedledum. Their supporting the Tories against the interests of Scotland was what did for them. They have no chance of any return until they realise that they are supposed to be a Scottish party and support independence, plus change almost every donkey they currently have as MSP's.HYUFD said:
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
He's not cut through yet but it will be interesting to see if he has any impact on SLABs fortunes. Miliband and Corbyn were almost purpose-built to repel Scottish voters, but a serious politician like Sir Keir may appeal to that grain of old-style moral purpose that you find with some strains of progressive opinion, if Indy ever goes off the boil. However, wouldn't hang my hat on it, certainly so long as SLAB are lumbered with Richard Leonard.1 -
-
Hmm that's potentially possible if the most susceptible have actively got the virus ahead of the general population or there's a colossal iceberg (So London is close to herd immunity).JohnLilburne said:
In terms of where we are on the curve. There are now fewer people in hospital with Covid in London than the North West.Pulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
0 -
Fairly sure I never said that about the testing? I'm happy to agree that the focus on the testing numbers was ludicrous. Hancock and his team deserve some credit for hitting a target that looked almost impossible a few weeks before, but that's about it.kinabalu said:
So "100k" (aka 83k) tests on a particular day merits an orgy of positive coverage but going top of the league table on deaths on a particular day merits but a shrug? This sounds to me like highly selective "obsessing over round numbers".Endillion said:
Oh yeah, that's a decent point, but I didn't get that far, and it's got nothing to do with the main issue. But on the first bit, I think he's entirely wrong: it's much more sensible for the papers to focus on the judgment of one of the Government's lead advisors than to obsess over round numbers and inappropriate international comparisons. Albeit that they may be doing it for the wrong reasons.kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.0 -
Exercising once a day was literally in the rules Boris announced right at the start. https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-announces-coronavirus-lockdown-in-uk/RochdalePioneers said:
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.Andy_Cooke said:I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
0 -
David , you surely mean the lies about more devolution , and federation etc as well as the economic lies and scaremongering. Darling was a poor liar compared to Davidson and BrownHYUFD said:
The focus on Better Together and more devolution as well as the economic warnings was effective.DavidL said:
I played a very active part in that campaign. It was awful. Darling could not really bring himself to say anything good about the UK because it was led by the Coalition. He was entirely negative in his approach, characterised by the SNP as the "too wee, too stupid" argument. They had a point. His performance in the debates against Salmond really scared me, I thought he had lost.HYUFD said:
No won with 55% of the vote in 2014, if it had ran as crap a campaign as Remain did in 2016 it would have lostAlistair said:
I don't know what you are talking about David. Better Together was a colossus of a campaign, heroically reducing Scotland's natural 90% support for Indy down to a mere 45%. It is a blueprint for how all political campaigning should be performed.DavidL said:
He came seriously close to losing the Indyref.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
...
Sorry, I blacked out and Duncan Hothersall took over my body there.
Only Ruth Davidson with a bit of Gordon Brown towards the end was British and genuinely proud of it. Only the good sense of the Scottish people saved the Union.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
In referendum terms 55% to 45% is a solid win0 -
Generally I don’t write puff pieces praising governments. You can get that kind of stuff elsewhere if it floats your boat. I have generally assumed most come on here for something a little more demanding. You write them if you want.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Still I must be one of the few on here (let alone from the centre left social democrats - ha!) who has praised Priti Patel in a thread header. See here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/30/reflections-part-one/.0 -
We will see.Cyclefree said:
Thank you both.kinabalu said:
I agree. Just read it. Very good. As was Alastair's WW2 one.Richard_Tyndall said:Morning folks
its been a busy few days with work so not had much chance to even look at PB let alone post. But just wanted to say what a fantastic thread header Cyclefree wrote for the previous thread. Extremely well presented and informative.
PB at its best.
I hope the government reads, understands and follows!
Did I detect just a touch of special pleading for your daughter in there?
0 -
After weeks of sitting in sunny gardens, eating homemade cheese scones, Britain wakes up to the credit card bill
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/12582847553276067850 -
I think the word "being" was redundant.MikeSmithson said:
You are being ridiculously partisan.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?1 -
"readers" is a bit of an oxymoron for Sun buyers, if not in pictures they are lost.Andy_Cooke said:I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
0 -
On the topic of digging into stories, technicalities etc. WMDs and Iraq - what if someone had asked the question, that seemed obvious to me at the time, about the 45 minute thing...kinabalu said:
I'm reading the Campbell diaries atm. Seems so long ago now.Malmesbury said:
Well, part of the problem with story-by-chewing-up-press-releases is that you are still writing a story based on the press release. However much you chew. Hence the New Labour realisation of press control - simply embed some nice chewy stories in the press releases and the press will play good dog.kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
"What is it that they can deploy, in 45 minutes?"
0 -
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?0 -
She can be got rid of , she has one more chance.HYUFD said:
Not looking good for you Malc then, as Sturgeon is dithering even more than May didmalcolmg said:
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.algarkirk said:
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.Mexicanpete said:
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.HYUFD said:
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.ThomasNashe said:
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.rottenborough said:A veritable feast:
General election on BBC:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1258290364831629312
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour0 -
She most certainly is, she is not a conservative, libertarian or socialist, she is a Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams style social democratThomasNashe said:
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?0 -
That's not the credit card bill, that's your newly reduced wage from which you still need to pay the same outgoings as you had prior to the "holiday".rottenborough said:After weeks of sitting in sunny gardens, eating homemade cheese scones, Britain wakes up to the credit card bill
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1258284755327606785
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.0 -
But he *isn't* announcing what they say. What the press are doing is announcing to the proles that they can basically sack this off and do what they like. Which they will. We're back to herd immunity for the desperate/don't care group and terrified lock down for the ill / vulnerable.Pulpstar said:
That'd require Boris to go against a compliant pressRochdalePioneers said:
When he announces nothing of the sort I wonder what their front pages will be on Monday?Scott_xP said:1 -
There is concern here in Cumbria that the peak has not yet been reached.Pulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
In the advice. Not in the rules.Philip_Thompson said:
Exercising once a day was literally in the rules Boris announced right at the start. https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-announces-coronavirus-lockdown-in-uk/RochdalePioneers said:
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.Andy_Cooke said:I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
0 -
I was lucky that I managed through contacts to have had set up for my wife 24/7 care cover just as the sh.. hit three fansquareroot2 said:
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.nichomar said:Thanks for the good wishes. It’s striking how nothing has changed on here in two and a half weeks. I might one day feel up to writing about being behind the covid front line while not a sufferer.
0 -
The infections did start earlier and higher in London , Scotland was weeks behind it for any meaningful infection levels.Pulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
0 -
Scotland's in a curious place. SNP seem to be completely dominant, like ANC in S Africa. Nicola miles ahead personally.malcolmg said:
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.algarkirk said:
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.Mexicanpete said:
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.HYUFD said:
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.ThomasNashe said:
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.rottenborough said:A veritable feast:
General election on BBC:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1258290364831629312
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.1 -
I wonder where in nature one finds beings whose natural inclination is to throw shit? I can't imagine.Dura_Ace said:
Why? Do you think the tories would be uncritically supportive of Corbyn if he were fucking this up. (Which he almost certainly would.)Stocky said:
Please lay off party politics.
Johnson wanted to be PM. Well this is what being PM is. Being abused and having shit flung at you 24/7 so fuck him right in his fat twat.1 -
It looks like we avoided overloading the NHS partly by telling people to stay at home until it was too late to save them. This has also led to serious deaths.eek said:
Timing was everything - this virus will still be with us in a years time. The only thing that matters is that the NHS is never overloaded as that leads to serious deaths.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Indeed. We knew that viruses spread exponentially. We knew that the Chinese had gone to extreme lengths to contain it. We knew that it was spreading rapidly in Italy. And yet Boris still dithered. It's absolutely unforgivable.Pulpstar said:
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.DavidL said:
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
I suspect when we look back at things in 2-4 years time the real disastrous decisions haven't been made yet.
Yes, the virus will still be with us in a year's time, but there is a good chance that we'll have learned to deal with it better by then. The initial disastrous decision was not to stamp on exponential growth at the start in order to give ourselves more time to determine strategy. This could well be compounded by additional disastrous decisions in the future, such as easing lockdown too soon and losing control of the spread again. We'll see.0 -
The Scotland Act 2016 gave Holyrood more powersmalcolmg said:
David , you surely mean the lies about more devolution , and federation etc as well as the economic lies and scaremongering. Darling was a poor liar compared to Davidson and BrownHYUFD said:
The focus on Better Together and more devolution as well as the economic warnings was effective.DavidL said:
I played a very active part in that campaign. It was awful. Darling could not really bring himself to say anything good about the UK because it was led by the Coalition. He was entirely negative in his approach, characterised by the SNP as the "too wee, too stupid" argument. They had a point. His performance in the debates against Salmond really scared me, I thought he had lost.HYUFD said:
No won with 55% of the vote in 2014, if it had ran as crap a campaign as Remain did in 2016 it would have lostAlistair said:
I don't know what you are talking about David. Better Together was a colossus of a campaign, heroically reducing Scotland's natural 90% support for Indy down to a mere 45%. It is a blueprint for how all political campaigning should be performed.DavidL said:
He came seriously close to losing the Indyref.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
...
Sorry, I blacked out and Duncan Hothersall took over my body there.
Only Ruth Davidson with a bit of Gordon Brown towards the end was British and genuinely proud of it. Only the good sense of the Scottish people saved the Union.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
In referendum terms 55% to 45% is a solid win0 -
As I said, only in their heads. The *actual* rules are the legal regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/madePhilip_Thompson said:
Exercising once a day was literally in the rules Boris announced right at the start. https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-announces-coronavirus-lockdown-in-uk/RochdalePioneers said:
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.Andy_Cooke said:I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
No restriction on frequency of exercise, length of exercise, location of exercise. Just because as I put it "a gobshite cabinet minister" said it doesn't make it the rules. The rule of law is the rules. With the emphasis on law.0 -
Though even then your praise for Priti Patel was partly a tool for criticising Dominic RaabCyclefree said:
Generally I don’t write puff pieces praising governments. You can get that kind of stuff elsewhere if it floats your boat. I have generally assumed most come on here for something a little more demanding. You write them if you want.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Still I must be one of the few on here (let alone from the centre left social democrats - ha!) who has praised Priti Patel in a thread header. See here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/30/reflections-part-one/.1 -
That is Andy Burnham's position to be fairPulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
0 -
Apparently I'm not getting a paper tax return and have to fill one in online.
Was this a change coming in anyway, or something that's been updated due to the pandemic?
The letter is dated 6 April but only arrived today.0 -
We had some interesting - and informative - chats on federalism here in 2013-4 in the runup to indyref 1. IIRC we generally agreed that short of bringing back the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy or some similar way of breaking up England, or giving the Scots (etc) an effective veto on what the English wanted, it was impossible to federalise the UK in any meaningful way. I've lost track of the number of SLAB pols and their UK equivalents who talk about Federalism as the solution but I've not seen one clear statement of how you would get those changes through. I'd say it is even less likely after Brexit.Burgessian said:
Starmer trying to square the circle with talk of "federalism", whatever that means.HYUFD said:
If people want independence they will vote SNP or a new Nat party, if Scottish Labour backed independence it would just lose its Unionist votemalcolmg said:
Up to your usual Scottish lack of knowledge. Miliband had nothing to do with other than being the dupe to follow tweedledee and tweedledum. Their supporting the Tories against the interests of Scotland was what did for them. They have no chance of any return until they realise that they are supposed to be a Scottish party and support independence, plus change almost every donkey they currently have as MSP's.HYUFD said:
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.Alistair said:
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.rottenborough said:Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
He's not cut through yet but it will be interesting to see if he has any impact on SLABs fortunes. Miliband and Corbyn were almost purpose-built to repel Scottish voters, but a serious politician like Sir Keir may appeal to that grain of old-style moral purpose that you find with some strains of progressive opinion, if Indy ever goes off the boil. However, wouldn't hang my hat on it, certainly so long as SLAB are lumbered with Richard Leonard.0 -
Anecdote comparison with the situation in Germany (Berlin). A friend had flu symptoms on Sunday and Monday. There was good reason for her to get tested before this weekend, so she went to have a test on Monday. She got the result in under 24 hours. Thankfully negative. She does not have any fast-track status such as working in a hospital.JohnLilburne said:I've just followed up my covid test as it is now 6 days since I had it and the email said that in some circumstances it might take up to 5 days. It's easy to get through but some of the virtual call centre staff are very new and don't know what they're doing. The first was working her first shift and didn't know how to address the system to find out about tests that had previously taken place. The second said she needed my barcode number which is on a piece of paper you find in the test kit, so I scurried off to find it in the recycling. The third then used my personal data to raise a query without needing the barcode number! However she said it was taking up to 10 days in some cases as there is a backlog due to the number of tests sent out at the end of last week.
Not getting test result within 5 days is just crazy, the whole "test as much as possible" strategy is undervalued by slow processing of results.0 -
Advice and rules is a distinction without a difference. Just like the government advising customers not to go to businesses. The government and media have said all along only exercise once a day outside - to the point that people are routinely joking about it - the fact that it was technically not illegal to exercise twice is moot.Cyclefree said:
There is concern here in Cumbria that the peak has not yet been reached.Pulpstar said:
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.Big_G_NorthWales said:The north are two weeks behind London
In the advice. Not in the rules.Philip_Thompson said:
Exercising once a day was literally in the rules Boris announced right at the start. https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-announces-coronavirus-lockdown-in-uk/RochdalePioneers said:
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.Andy_Cooke said:I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
People are quite rightly trying to follow the rules including the advice. If those change that's meaningful.0 -
Competent or just not as incompetent as the other parties who by any measure seem completely incompetent?Burgessian said:
Scotland's in a curious place. SNP seem to be completely dominant, like ANC in S Africa. Nicola miles ahead personally.malcolmg said:
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.algarkirk said:
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.Mexicanpete said:
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.HYUFD said:
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.ThomasNashe said:
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.rottenborough said:A veritable feast:
General election on BBC:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1258290364831629312
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.0 -
Agree. All politics is about travelling hopefully rather than arriving, so the SNP can carry this on for a long time yet, with some votes from most opinion groups.Burgessian said:
Scotland's in a curious place. SNP seem to be completely dominant, like ANC in S Africa. Nicola miles ahead personally.malcolmg said:
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.algarkirk said:
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.Mexicanpete said:
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.HYUFD said:
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.ThomasNashe said:
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.rottenborough said:A veritable feast:
General election on BBC:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1258290364831629312
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.
0 -
It's not an either/or.HYUFD said:
She most certainly is, she is not a conservative, libertarian or socialist, she is a Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams style social democratThomasNashe said:
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?0 -
When celebrating VE Day tomorrow we might remember the second-worst consequence of WW2, after the Nazis and their unspeakable horrors, was the suffocating atmosphere of social conformity the British had to endure in order to defeat them. This was not finally dispelled until the 1960s, and even then we had a continuing culture clash between the young, who craved every sort of freedom, and their parents, who had built their sense of identity around the uniformity of wartime.
Some comments here have, correctly, mentioned the impossibility of relying on the police to enforce lockdown. But a greater danger lies in the social breakdown between conformists and libertarians fighting a war of attrition over every aspect of "social distancing" that they have chosen to enforce or reject. Particularly as this will cut across other deep divisions of age, class, race etc.0 -
Yes. Unashamedly so. Watching her trying to build up and maintain the business and her concern for her employees and the effect this is having on her and others in her situation in this area has given me an insight I did not have before. At least not at such a visceral level. I am, frankly, desperately worried. If it is not viable - and I don’t see how it will be for a while yet - its closure will have a terrible effect on lots of people, directly and indirectly, and there are not many alternatives available.kinabalu said:
We will see.Cyclefree said:
Thank you both.kinabalu said:
I agree. Just read it. Very good. As was Alastair's WW2 one.Richard_Tyndall said:Morning folks
its been a busy few days with work so not had much chance to even look at PB let alone post. But just wanted to say what a fantastic thread header Cyclefree wrote for the previous thread. Extremely well presented and informative.
PB at its best.
I hope the government reads, understands and follows!
Did I detect just a touch of special pleading for your daughter in there?
And do not forget my sons either. Or me, come to that. My work is not really feasible if people cannot meet. The entire Cyclefree family could very soon be permanently unemployed unless we can get jobs with the NHS which will likely soon be the only employer left in the country.1 -
Just pass his comments by.. its a diatribe of nastiness.BluestBlue said:
I wonder where in nature one finds beings whose natural inclination is to throw shit? I can't imagine.Dura_Ace said:
Why? Do you think the tories would be uncritically supportive of Corbyn if he were fucking this up. (Which he almost certainly would.)Stocky said:
Please lay off party politics.
Johnson wanted to be PM. Well this is what being PM is. Being abused and having shit flung at you 24/7 so fuck him right in his fat twat.0 -
Bank of England actually pretty upbeat, saying we will make up the lost ground in 2 years. This implies they consider the effect almost entirely cyclical, which, if true, would be fantastic news.eek said:
That's not the credit card bill, that's your newly reduced wage from which you still need to pay the same outgoings as you had prior to the "holiday".rottenborough said:After weeks of sitting in sunny gardens, eating homemade cheese scones, Britain wakes up to the credit card bill
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1258284755327606785
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.2 -
Not sure if chimps do it in the wild (htrey famously do it in the zoo). But see thisBluestBlue said:
I wonder where in nature one finds beings whose natural inclination is to throw shit? I can't imagine.Dura_Ace said:
Why? Do you think the tories would be uncritically supportive of Corbyn if he were fucking this up. (Which he almost certainly would.)Stocky said:
Please lay off party politics.
Johnson wanted to be PM. Well this is what being PM is. Being abused and having shit flung at you 24/7 so fuck him right in his fat twat.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2003/03/frass-flies2 -
Bird migration I can get my head round. Insect migration - not so much. The Painted Lady is remarkable: it marches north, with fast developing waves of eggs --> larvae --> adults and then when the weather starts to turn in the far north, it does the same heading south. Coastal radar stations record them in their millions both ways.Burgessian said:
I seem to remember a story that as the troops crossed the channel on D-Day there was a noticeable migration movement of these moths going the other way. Insect migration is much less noticeable than that of birds but equally fascinating.MarqueeMark said:Moth du Jour: Hummingbird Hawkmoth. A migrant from Europe, they are a not infrequent visitor to our gardens.
Some detail here: https://butterfly-conservation.org/news-and-blog/painted-lady-migration-secrets-revealed1 -
Thinking of possible bunny rabbits that Johnson may have to pull out of his hat, I note that HMG are continuing to report test numbers from Pillar 4 - the high-quality population survey serology testing at Porton Down - but without saying anything about the results in terms of the overall prevalence of infection.
Perhaps he will get to announce that they've discovered infection has been much more widespread than thought, the fatality rate is consequently much lower and lockdown was, with the benefit of hindsight, a mistake.
Probably shouldn't get my hopes up, but I can only suppress my optimism for so long.1 -
You don’t speak for me.HYUFD said:
She most certainly is, she is not a conservative, libertarian or socialist, she is a Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams style social democratThomasNashe said:
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.HYUFD said:
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.Cyclefree said:
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?Philip_Thompson said:
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.Cyclefree said:
That is simply not true.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.Cyclefree said:No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
And don’t understand me either.1 -
My vague recollection is that it was something to do with the flight time of a missile from Iraq to our sovereign bases on Cyprus. It really is astonishing that Alastair Campbell did not go to jail for the dodgy dossier. Even more astonishing than the idea that anyone should listen to a word he has said since.Malmesbury said:
On the topic of digging into stories, technicalities etc. WMDs and Iraq - what if someone had asked the question, that seemed obvious to me at the time, about the 45 minute thing...kinabalu said:
I'm reading the Campbell diaries atm. Seems so long ago now.Malmesbury said:
Well, part of the problem with story-by-chewing-up-press-releases is that you are still writing a story based on the press release. However much you chew. Hence the New Labour realisation of press control - simply embed some nice chewy stories in the press releases and the press will play good dog.kinabalu said:
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.Endillion said:
First time for everything...kinabalu said:
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
"What is it that they can deploy, in 45 minutes?"0 -
That does seem rather optimistic. I suspect many sectors will take a long time to recover.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Bank of England actually pretty upbeat, saying we will make up the lost ground in 2 years. This implies they consider the effect almost entirely cyclical, which, if true, would be fantastic news.eek said:
That's not the credit card bill, that's your newly reduced wage from which you still need to pay the same outgoings as you had prior to the "holiday".rottenborough said:After weeks of sitting in sunny gardens, eating homemade cheese scones, Britain wakes up to the credit card bill
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1258284755327606785
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.0 -
Hancock has the most unenviable job in governmentMexicanpete said:
Agreed. Winning a GE just before the biggest catastrophe the modern world has witnessed would be a poisoned chalice for any government.stodge said:
This is the bearpit where politically interested people gather to talk politics. Democracy hasn't been suspended and neither have comment, opinion, analysis and scrutiny.Mexicanpete said:
I too am supportive. The fact that the NHS has held up under the strain is a massive plus for the government.
However, if people are dying unnecessarily because of government errors regarding PPE, testing and timing the lockdown to perfection, all need calling out and reviewing to see if and why things did or did not go wrong.
P Tories are bemoaning criticism as partisan, yet when the government wilfully massaged the testing figures, it was a case that Matt had stuck one on the hapless Starmer. Boris, too, yesterday with one eye on his popularity trumped Starmer's excellent PMQ performance by hinting at an end to lockdown. Loads of stupid games are being played by all sides at a time when they shouldn't.
And don't get me started on Hancock slapping down Allin Khan
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
I also accept it was initially a fast developing situation and I will accept genuine mistakes made in the heat of the moment - avoidable with hindsight maybe but that's often the case.
If we had a non-Conservative Government in power now, it would have its defenders and its detractors - that's the nature of the political beast.
I can accept many of the errors as necessary judgement calls that with a little more time might have been called differently. It is the one upmanship I can't abide, and when it goes wrong, lies and subterfuge are used to cover up a genuine error. That probably works both ways, however Hancock's devilish state at Starmer during PMQs suggests he is taking it personally and doesn't like it. That could be seen as sinister, although it could also be that he knows he is the fall guy for the after-Covid political post mortem.0 -
It's planned (there are exceptions for those who can't file online)Morris_Dancer said:Apparently I'm not getting a paper tax return and have to fill one in online.
Was this a change coming in anyway, or something that's been updated due to the pandemic?
The letter is dated 6 April but only arrived today.1
This discussion has been closed.