politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls aren’t moving but Labour shouldn’t be too concerned

Andy_JS said:

If the point of the lockdown was to keep deaths under 20,000 it hasn't worked by a heavy margin. If most of the deaths are in care homes, is the lockdown achieving anything? Because it probably isn't having an effect on what does or doesn't happen in care homes.

Why would you think that?

Care home staff are probably the main way it gets into care homes and they live in the 'real world'. Community transmission being reduced reduces the risk care home staff catch it and bring it in with them.

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

Casino_Royale said:

Even those who haven't bothered (Sweden ) and those are going for the total knob-jockey strategy (Trump's US) are seeing the curves flattening out.

This virus just isn't the end of days. It's very nasty if it decides to go for you. If your immune system overreacts, you can be toast. But it's still a very small minority of the population affected and, even then, the vast majority over 60.

Personally I find cancer far scarier and we're racking up the extra deaths on that right now.

Are 40,000 extra Covid-19 deaths worth it to avoid an extra 25,000 cancer deaths and the destruction of the economy for 20 years and millions of young lives ruined, possibly for good?

In my view, yes.

This notion of the economy being "destroyed" is curious.

Global nuclear war would destroy the economy - if covid-19 had an infection rate of 90% and a mortality rate of 75% that would destroy the economy.

This won't.

it will be a shock and for some very painful but capitalism is very hard to kill - almost like a virus I suppose. Adversity creates opportunity, those businesses which are adept, can adapt, can evolve will not only survive but prosper.

It is economic darwinism, a culling of the weak, the vulnerable, the poorly run. Why should we object to that?

In America, the stock market is rebounding strongly - the Nasdaq is back positive for 2020 and all because the view is re-opening will lead to a rapid return of normal economic activity - we'll go down 14% in one quarter and back up 15% in the next.

Perhaps we will all queue through the night for our Big Mac fix but once that's happened the big question is whether economic life will be as it was - if so, this will all be a bad dream. If not, our problems may just be beginning.

Mortimer said:

NickPalmer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Over 82% of 4,167 people who died with Covid-19 in Canada have been elderly residents of long-term care homes, a report from Canada’s National Institute on Aging says

I think that younger people are drawing conclusions from this sort of stat to think that they'll be fine if they catch it - whereas they'll probably survive but may well have permanent (?) lung damage. Personally that actually worries me more - I'll die sometime anyuway, but I'd rather not have years of lung trouble.

I wonder if there's a city/non-city split - there's so much more to do in London that people are missing out on. Here in sleepy Godalming, I'm missing out on going to the pub to play poker, meh.

A contact in London told me it is deserted today. Admittedly, they do live in the city - where not many others do....

It wasnt deserted in the city this afternoon, close to lockdown weekend levels, well above lockdown weekday levels so far. Saw a taxi knock a cyclist flying turning at the traffic lights! Very fortunately he was fine just cuts and likely bruises, but not a sound Id like to hear again.

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

You're delusional to think vetoing an election is ever plausible for an opposition for long.

Alistair said:

Interesting in Sweden that Malmo is still basically covid free.

Do you know if the bridge between Malmo and Copenhagen is closed?

Alistair said:

Interesting in Sweden that Malmo is still basically covid free.

I find that extremely unlikely.

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

justin124 said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

In 2017 he outperformed both of Kinnock's elections of 1987 & 1992, Millband's 2015 election, Brown in 2010 and Foot in 1983.

He was really successful in people thinking he was a complete and utter cnut. Even labour folk thought that!!!

Not in 2017. In 2017 he did so well that Boris nicked his entire platform.

If you think defest was a success then good luck to you. Just like Corbyn the message was more important gha5n winning.... Corbyn would have been thrashrd has it not been f6ir the loony Tory manifesto.

No, I think the 2017 to 2019 changes are the ones that need to be explained. Or you can say it does not matter provided the right team won. That is a reasonable and popular view. But if you do want to go deeper, then Boris won in 2019 on a platform that owed more to Corbyn 2017 than to May 2017.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

justin124 said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

In 2017 he outperformed both of Kinnock's elections of 1987 & 1992, Millband's 2015 election, Brown in 2010 and Foot in 1983.

He was really successful in people thinking he was a complete and utter cnut. Even labour folk thought that!!!

Not in 2017. In 2017 he did so well that Boris nicked his entire platform.

If you think defest was a success then good luck to you. Just like Corbyn the message was more important gha5n winning.... Corbyn would have been thrashrd has it not been f6ir the loony Tory manifesto.

No, I think the 2017 to 2019 changes are the ones that need to be explained. Or you can say it does not matter provided the right team won. That is a reasonable and popular view. But if you do want to go deeper, then Boris won in 2019 on a platform that owed more to Corbyn 2017 than to May 2017.

Boris’s platform is basically just patriotic Corbynism.

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

BluestBlue said:

FrankBooth said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

The Government has no-one to blame but itself.

It’s been heavily trailing all sorts of loosening in the papers over the last few days (those articles saying that unlimited socially-distanced outdoor activity, picnics and sunbathing, and permitted mixing with only one other chosen household from Downing Street “sources” weren’t just conjured up out of thin air) but it wasn’t sure how popular it was due to far too literal reading of headline polling numbers and then chickened out at the 11th hour due to ‘care homes’, which is a disaster of its own making.

They should have made the announcement yesterday at 8pm after their review. Instead, they’ve decided to do it late on Sunday night and only give the benefits to the oldies.

It’s really pissed people off. Many were really looking forward to this weekend, and are happy to continue to act responsibly but want the Government to be reasonable.

The Government haven’t been reasonable (instead trying to tell people to “keep going” in adds yesterday) and so people have had enough and are now taking matters into their own hands.

The problem is Johnson is terrified of being unpopular (he's not used to it) and is therefore incapable of saying what he thinks people don't want to hear.

On Wednesday he tried to placate both the pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown groups and ended up annoying them both. Sunak's flip-flopping on the furlough money also suggests division and drift in the Cabinet. There's obviously a faction who thinks this has gone on long enough and the economic damage unsupportable.

This chimes with US stock market sentiment (the DJIA goes on rising and NASDAQ is positive for the year) which thinks the re-opening in several states will lead to a surge in economic activity such that in a few months the US economy will be humming along, Trump will get re-elected and all this will seem a bad dream.

Perhaps but indications are after an early surge activity remains slack - people are scared still and the US case numbers don't inspire confidence. We'll see.

That's a good summary.

My view is Johnson's chickens are going to come home to roost sooner than he thinks.

I'm still betting on him being gone before the next election.

He was made for the effortlessly good times, not a real national crisis; despite a lifetime of wanting to be Churchill, he’s always really been Macmillan.

I don't think he's MacMillan either actually. He's a bombastic newspaper columnist with, I admit, a certain appeal to people.

The MacMillan - Boris parallels are amusingly close on a bare summary of the facts:

Eton
Eton

Balliol (Lit Hum)
Balliol (Lit Hum)

Becomes Tory PM without a general election
Becomes Tory PM without a general election

Increases Tory majority 8 years into power and wins 365 seats
Increases Tory majority 9 years into power and wins 365 seats

Resigns after an epic sex scandal that had nothing to do with him
?????????????????????

It's spooky, I tell you!

You forgot to add “Undermined his party leader”.

Macmillan resigned after being hospitalised. Boris might yet do the same.

In which case - who will be the Lord Home of 2022-4?

Tentatively, I suggest Michael Gove.

Rishi Sunak based on the polls, so the Conservative Party will have the first Asian prime minister as well as the first two women.

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

NickPalmer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Over 82% of 4,167 people who died with Covid-19 in Canada have been elderly residents of long-term care homes, a report from Canada’s National Institute on Aging says

I think that younger people are drawing conclusions from this sort of stat to think that they'll be fine if they catch it - whereas they'll probably survive but may well have permanent (?) lung damage. Personally that actually worries me more - I'll die sometime anyuway, but I'd rather not have years of lung trouble.

I wonder if there's a city/non-city split - there's so much more to do in London that people are missing out on. Here in sleepy Godalming, I'm missing out on going to the pub to play poker, meh.

A contact in London told me it is deserted today. Admittedly, they do live in the city - where not many others do....

Hampstead was extremely busy this afternoon.

Was someone handing out free hummus?

That Katie Miller is very attractive I must say.

noneoftheabove said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

For the LibDems to stop Brexit, they had to work with Labour. That is the only way the numbers worked. Unfortunately, almost as soon as she was elected leader, Jo Swinson blurted out that she would not work with Corbyn so the die was cast.

Dan Snow on the fortifications of the Bailiwick of Guernsey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KBO7c9sHdI

It's funny watching the 2010 Election Coverage and absolutly nobody is taking about Europe (or if they are it's very brief).

Anyway, Labour have won 41 seats in Scotland. What would they give for that now?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

For the LibDems to stop Brexit, they had to work with Labour. That is the only way the numbers worked. Unfortunately, almost as soon as she was elected leader, Jo Swinson blurted out that she would not work with Corbyn so the die was cast.

I agree, Corbyn/ Swanson = Dream Team.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

For the LibDems to stop Brexit, they had to work with Labour. That is the only way the numbers worked. Unfortunately, almost as soon as she was elected leader, Jo Swinson blurted out that she would not work with Corbyn so the die was cast.

How were you going to get rebel tory and DUP MPs to back Corbyn?

Everyone seems incapable of remembering there was a clear Tory & DUP majority, even if the govt majority disappeared. It was never in the gift of the LD/SNP to support Corbyn as they never had the numbers.

Soft Brexit was in the hands of the rebels a couple of times when the govt was weak and they should have gone for that.

algarkirk said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

@Cyclefree

Eloquent - but a touch of "cracking butterfly on a wheel". I don't think he was being serious.

Which MP is most associated with that phrase?

JR-M whose father WR-M used the phrase 'Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel' in a Times leader in about 1967.

This government is rather more Dunciad than Epistle to Dr. A....

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

BluestBlue said:

FrankBooth said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

The Government has no-one to blame but itself.

It’s been heavily trailing all sorts of loosening in the papers over the last few days (those articles saying that unlimited socially-distanced outdoor activity, picnics and sunbathing, and permitted mixing with only one other chosen household from Downing Street “sources” weren’t just conjured up out of thin air) but it wasn’t sure how popular it was due to far too literal reading of headline polling numbers and then chickened out at the 11th hour due to ‘care homes’, which is a disaster of its own making.

They should have made the announcement yesterday at 8pm after their review. Instead, they’ve decided to do it late on Sunday night and only give the benefits to the oldies.

It’s really pissed people off. Many were really looking forward to this weekend, and are happy to continue to act responsibly but want the Government to be reasonable.

The Government haven’t been reasonable (instead trying to tell people to “keep going” in adds yesterday) and so people have had enough and are now taking matters into their own hands.

The problem is Johnson is terrified of being unpopular (he's not used to it) and is therefore incapable of saying what he thinks people don't want to hear.

On Wednesday he tried to placate both the pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown groups and ended up annoying them both. Sunak's flip-flopping on the furlough money also suggests division and drift in the Cabinet. There's obviously a faction who thinks this has gone on long enough and the economic damage unsupportable.

This chimes with US stock market sentiment (the DJIA goes on rising and NASDAQ is positive for the year) which thinks the re-opening in several states will lead to a surge in economic activity such that in a few months the US economy will be humming along, Trump will get re-elected and all this will seem a bad dream.

Perhaps but indications are after an early surge activity remains slack - people are scared still and the US case numbers don't inspire confidence. We'll see.

That's a good summary.

My view is Johnson's chickens are going to come home to roost sooner than he thinks.

I'm still betting on him being gone before the next election.

He was made for the effortlessly good times, not a real national crisis; despite a lifetime of wanting to be Churchill, he’s always really been Macmillan.

I don't think he's MacMillan either actually. He's a bombastic newspaper columnist with, I admit, a certain appeal to people.

The MacMillan - Boris parallels are amusingly close on a bare summary of the facts:

Eton
Eton

Balliol (Lit Hum)
Balliol (Lit Hum)

Becomes Tory PM without a general election
Becomes Tory PM without a general election

Increases Tory majority 8 years into power and wins 365 seats
Increases Tory majority 9 years into power and wins 365 seats

Resigns after an epic sex scandal that had nothing to do with him
?????????????????????

It's spooky, I tell you!

You forgot to add “Undermined his party leader”.

Macmillan resigned after being hospitalised. Boris might yet do the same.

In which case - who will be the Lord Home of 2022-4?

Tentatively, I suggest Michael Gove.

Rishi Sunak based on the polls, so the Conservative Party will have the first Asian prime minister as well as the first two women.

Except that if Boris bails in 2022, this administration will have a distinct air of fag end about it. Rishi is young enough, ambitious enough and in a safe enough seat to want more than to be a fag end PM.

He just needs to stop those weird arm movements like he does in the Covid advert he appears in at the moment.

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

Interesting in Sweden that Malmo is still basically covid free.

I find that extremely unlikely.

Skane county: 73 cases per 100000, under 100 deaths

I mistrust the stats not your reporting of them.

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

For the LibDems to stop Brexit, they had to work with Labour. That is the only way the numbers worked. Unfortunately, almost as soon as she was elected leader, Jo Swinson blurted out that she would not work with Corbyn so the die was cast.

How were you going to get rebel tory and DUP MPs to back Corbyn?

Everyone seems incapable of remembering there was a clear Tory & DUP majority, even if the govt majority disappeared. It was never in the gift of the LD/SNP to support Corbyn as they never had the numbers.

Soft Brexit was in the hands of the rebels a couple of times when the govt was weak and they should have gone for that.

There would have been enough votes to revoke Article 50 and immediately call a general election. Labour had agreed to purdah terms.

These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

For the LibDems to stop Brexit, they had to work with Labour. That is the only way the numbers worked. Unfortunately, almost as soon as she was elected leader, Jo Swinson blurted out that she would not work with Corbyn so the die was cast.

How were you going to get rebel tory and DUP MPs to back Corbyn?

Everyone seems incapable of remembering there was a clear Tory & DUP majority, even if the govt majority disappeared. It was never in the gift of the LD/SNP to support Corbyn as they never had the numbers.

Soft Brexit was in the hands of the rebels a couple of times when the govt was weak and they should have gone for that.

There would have been enough votes to revoke Article 50 and immediately call a general election. Labour had agreed to purdah terms.

Name the 15-20 Tory MPs who would have gone along with this? There were certainly opposition MPs who wouldnt have.

noneoftheabove said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

Even those who haven't bothered (Sweden ) and those are going for the total knob-jockey strategy (Trump's US) are seeing the curves flattening out.

This virus just isn't the end of days. It's very nasty if it decides to go for you. If your immune system overreacts, you can be toast. But it's still a very small minority of the population affected and, even then, the vast majority over 60.

Personally I find cancer far scarier and we're racking up the extra deaths on that right now.

Are 40,000 extra Covid-19 deaths worth it to avoid an extra 25,000 cancer deaths and the destruction of the economy for 20 years and millions of young lives ruined, possibly for good?

In my view, yes.

This notion of the economy being "destroyed" is curious.

Global nuclear war would destroy the economy - if covid-19 had an infection rate of 90% and a mortality rate of 75% that would destroy the economy.

This won't.

it will be a shock and for some very painful but capitalism is very hard to kill - almost like a virus I suppose. Adversity creates opportunity, those businesses which are adept, can adapt, can evolve will not only survive but prosper.

It is economic darwinism, a culling of the weak, the vulnerable, the poorly run. Why should we object to that?

In America, the stock market is rebounding strongly - the Nasdaq is back positive for 2020 and all because the view is re-opening will lead to a rapid return of normal economic activity - we'll go down 14% in one quarter and back up 15% in the next.

Perhaps we will all queue through the night for our Big Mac fix but once that's happened the big question is whether economic life will be as it was - if so, this will all be a bad dream. If not, our problems may just be beginning.

What you say is true for many but destroy is also apt for some parts of the economy, especially in tourism and hospitality, how is a cruise company seriously going to adapt?

Tourism could be more robust than expected. Whether existing suppliers can survive after losing a year's revenue might be doubtful but people will still want to go on holiday. Governments might do well to tide them over, perhaps with [drumroll] income-contingent loans cf student loans.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

Even those who haven't bothered (Sweden ) and those are going for the total knob-jockey strategy (Trump's US) are seeing the curves flattening out.

This virus just isn't the end of days. It's very nasty if it decides to go for you. If your immune system overreacts, you can be toast. But it's still a very small minority of the population affected and, even then, the vast majority over 60.

Personally I find cancer far scarier and we're racking up the extra deaths on that right now.

Are 40,000 extra Covid-19 deaths worth it to avoid an extra 25,000 cancer deaths and the destruction of the economy for 20 years and millions of young lives ruined, possibly for good?

In my view, yes.

This notion of the economy being "destroyed" is curious.

Global nuclear war would destroy the economy - if covid-19 had an infection rate of 90% and a mortality rate of 75% that would destroy the economy.

This won't.

it will be a shock and for some very painful but capitalism is very hard to kill - almost like a virus I suppose. Adversity creates opportunity, those businesses which are adept, can adapt, can evolve will not only survive but prosper.

It is economic darwinism, a culling of the weak, the vulnerable, the poorly run. Why should we object to that?

In America, the stock market is rebounding strongly - the Nasdaq is back positive for 2020 and all because the view is re-opening will lead to a rapid return of normal economic activity - we'll go down 14% in one quarter and back up 15% in the next.

Perhaps we will all queue through the night for our Big Mac fix but once that's happened the big question is whether economic life will be as it was - if so, this will all be a bad dream. If not, our problems may just be beginning.

What you say is true for many but destroy is also apt for some parts of the economy, especially in tourism and hospitality, how is a cruise company seriously going to adapt?

Tourism could be more robust than expected. Whether existing suppliers can survive after losing a year's revenue might be doubtful but people will still want to go on holiday. Governments might do well to tide them over, perhaps with [drumroll] income-contingent loans cf student loans.

The bigger issue will be whether they can afford holidays

@cricketwyvern's data shows number of deaths (6 day delay) down from 276 to 246.

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1258810882588659720

It's official. It's a Hung Parliament!

(I've also just remembered 2010 was the one and only time I've ever voted Tory)

noneoftheabove said:

What you say is true for many but destroy is also apt for some parts of the economy, especially in tourism and hospitality, how is a cruise company seriously going to adapt?

The cruise industry is a good example. It was hugely popular but was overtaken by air travel which was quicker so the cruise industry responded by offering their ships as floating luxury hotels aimed at those with time to spare (the retired) and money to spare (the downsizing retired who had either sold their house at a huge profit or were enjoying life on a nice pension).

The new demographic made the cruise industry successful so it may now need to adapt again. My thought - larger and fewer cabins and trips with fewer stops. Plenty of food and drink and even stronger medical testing before boarding and once on board.

The economics will change but the industry will adapt. The round the world trips will still exist I'm certain.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

Even those who haven't bothered (Sweden ) and those are going for the total knob-jockey strategy (Trump's US) are seeing the curves flattening out.

This virus just isn't the end of days. It's very nasty if it decides to go for you. If your immune system overreacts, you can be toast. But it's still a very small minority of the population affected and, even then, the vast majority over 60.

Personally I find cancer far scarier and we're racking up the extra deaths on that right now.

Are 40,000 extra Covid-19 deaths worth it to avoid an extra 25,000 cancer deaths and the destruction of the economy for 20 years and millions of young lives ruined, possibly for good?

In my view, yes.

This notion of the economy being "destroyed" is curious.

Global nuclear war would destroy the economy - if covid-19 had an infection rate of 90% and a mortality rate of 75% that would destroy the economy.

This won't.

it will be a shock and for some very painful but capitalism is very hard to kill - almost like a virus I suppose. Adversity creates opportunity, those businesses which are adept, can adapt, can evolve will not only survive but prosper.

It is economic darwinism, a culling of the weak, the vulnerable, the poorly run. Why should we object to that?

In America, the stock market is rebounding strongly - the Nasdaq is back positive for 2020 and all because the view is re-opening will lead to a rapid return of normal economic activity - we'll go down 14% in one quarter and back up 15% in the next.

Perhaps we will all queue through the night for our Big Mac fix but once that's happened the big question is whether economic life will be as it was - if so, this will all be a bad dream. If not, our problems may just be beginning.

What you say is true for many but destroy is also apt for some parts of the economy, especially in tourism and hospitality, how is a cruise company seriously going to adapt?

Tourism could be more robust than expected. Whether existing suppliers can survive after losing a year's revenue might be doubtful but people will still want to go on holiday. Governments might do well to tide them over, perhaps with [drumroll] income-contingent loans cf student loans.

Holidays, quite possibly but where to go?

My Grandad spent VE Day in Nijmegen serving with his REME unit attached to the 49th West Riding (Polar Bears). there's 4 hours of interview with him on IWM's website. Considering that he's been dead for over a decade its always brilliant to have a listen and be taken back to his house in Salford as he tells his tale...

More anecdata:
Wacky races outside on a urban main road in the Yorkshire Flatlands. More cars than there have been during the working week, and they've got nowhere legitimate to go. Lockdown is breaking. Also several police cars speeding past.

Opening garden centres is going to do nothing to help. Not least because the ones breaking lockdown would never be seen in a garden centre in a million years.

Here's Brenda....

CatMan said:

It's official. It's a Hung Parliament!

(I've also just remembered 2010 was the one and only time I've ever voted Tory)

Same for me with the LibDems.

Never again.

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

Andy_JS said:

Shaun Bailey fails to win Hammersmith by 3,000 votes. Andy Slaughter holds the seat for Labour.

Hammersmith was a seat Conservatives had been very confident of winning.

Their failure to do so was a turning point on long term Conservative strategy.

Having worked with Shaun in Hammersmith for that very election I don't remember anyone being confident. Let alone very confident

They were on the internet.

And Shaun Bailey was confident enough to be a 'Tatler Tory'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2711375/Society-magazine-Tatler-unveils-line-up-of-top-Tory-totty.html

He was a 'future Home Secretary'.

Which PPC is not confident in their utterances?

Not every PPC appears in Tatler described as a 'future Home Secretary'.

And it seems other local Conservatives also expected to gain Hammersmith in 2010:

This is the constituency I live in and where I am a councillor. It was a seat I was confident we would gain from Labour and thus see the excellent Shaun Bailey returned to the House of Commons and the egregious Andrew Slaughter removed. It was not to be. Indeed after the most dishonest campaign Slaughter won quite easily – with a majority of over 3,500.

https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2010/05/fraser-nelson-has-got-it-wrong-on-the-battle-for-hammersmith.html

You're not quite getting how it all works are you.

I can see when someone was comfortably beaten when his side was confident of winning.

Good point. But not as many of your links to a party who was not vocally confident of winning an election.

That doesn't make as much sense as you think it does.

Clearly the Hammersmith 2010 result still rankles.

But you shouldn't take it to heart so much - I'm sure your own efforts only added a few hundred to the Labour majority.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Visitors rushed to Georgia after the US state became one of the first to allow some non-essential businesses to reopen, a study of US mobile phone tracking data shows.

Traffic to Georgia jumped by 13% in the week after reopening on 24 April, according to University of Maryland researchers.

Most visitors came from neighbouring states where restrictions were still in place, such as Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama and Florida.

And this is why allowing one part of the UK to come out of lockdown before the rest will just cause issues.

Who are these people that are actively travelling miles and miles desperate to pick up COvid 19 ?

justin124 said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Coming in very late once again because of work.
But another excellent header from SO.

Right now there is absolutely nothing that Labour can do that will shift the polls and absolutely loads they need to do to make sure they do shift at the right time.

At the moment everything is about the Government.

If they come out of the crisis at some point over the next 12 - 18 months looking like they have done their best and without any real failings that can be stuck on them (a very big ask I believe) then they will win the next election no matter what Starmer and Labour do.

If they come out looking like they have made a mess of things for the wrong reasons (ignored scientific advise or made decisions outside of the scope of the advice that was clearly wrong) then they will suffer badly.

At that point Starmer needs to show that he has a party that is a Government in waiting. In all honesty there is no way Johnson should have won the 2019 election. Labour let him. What Labour need to do now is look competent, united, reasonable and appeal to a wide base. That isn't the same as moving to the centre. Parties make the centre anew at each election. What they have to do is show people that they can run things better than the Tories.

So Starmer has a huge amount to do. But none of it is likely to show up in the polling. He needs to ignore that for the next 2 years and then make sure that for the 2 years before the election he has gives himself the opportunity to challenge the Tories if they start to falter.

It was the LibDems and SNP who handed Johnson the 2019 election - simply by agreeing to it. Corbyn lost his veto once it became clear that a single clause Bill to override the FTPA was going to pass. How different things would have looked now had the minor Opposition parties allowed the Brexit saga to continue into 2020. No oelection would then have been likely before late February - by which time Coronavirus and the NHS would have become key issues pushing Brexit into the background.

The Brexit saga wouldnt have continued into 2020 any more than it has now. The numbers were there to pass the bill, the rebel tory MPs wanted a handful more days before rubber stamping it.

The PM made it appear otherwise because he is a shameful opportunist and knew the Brexiteer press and social media would gladly play along to win him the election.

The only chance the LD and SNP had to stop Brexit was an election, whether it was the right choice in the round is hard to know, but for LD in particular stopping Brexit had become their party identity.

For the LibDems to stop Brexit, they had to work with Labour. That is the only way the numbers worked. Unfortunately, almost as soon as she was elected leader, Jo Swinson blurted out that she would not work with Corbyn so the die was cast.

How were you going to get rebel tory and DUP MPs to back Corbyn?

Everyone seems incapable of remembering there was a clear Tory & DUP majority, even if the govt majority disappeared. It was never in the gift of the LD/SNP to support Corbyn as they never had the numbers.

Soft Brexit was in the hands of the rebels a couple of times when the govt was weak and they should have gone for that.

There would have been enough votes to revoke Article 50 and immediately call a general election. Labour had agreed to purdah terms.

Name the 15-20 Tory MPs who would have gone along with this? There were certainly opposition MPs who wouldnt have.

There might have been a shocking outbreak of bad wisdom teeth. The importance of purdah terms to prevent any Corbynista legislation should be borne in mind; no-one was asked to support a Corbyn government. Of course, Boris might still have won the subsequent election but we shall never know.

Can you name 5 of them? I dont think even one went as far as you are suggesting, yet you take it for granted Corbyn could have got over a dozen.

Tory defectors to ChangeUK/LibDems such as Soubry were possibilities. Ken Clarke and Gutto Bebb were also considering it as a last resort.

Clarke et al might just have voted for revoke to stop no deal - there was zero chance they would have done so once there was a deal on the table.

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

@cricketwyvern's data shows number of deaths (6 day delay) down from 276 to 246.

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1258810882588659720

Early signs of a flatlining. Not what we need, and perhaps due to more non-compliance?

Deaths would generally be occurring 2-4 weeks after infection.

So it would be a bad sign if they were already showing up.

What we could do with is some data as to how long the people dying have been infected.

Its possible that many dying now were infected over a month ago with relatively few recent infectees.

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

CatMan said:

It's official. It's a Hung Parliament!

(I've also just remembered 2010 was the one and only time I've ever voted Tory)

Same for me with the LibDems.

Never again.

What seat? Presumably a Tory-LD marginal?

So I thought! In the end Labour finished 2nd ahead of the LDs. Ealing Central & Acton.

It transpired that my Tory-member colleague who lived in the same seat voted Labour as she couldn't stand the Tory candidate.

Let the pollsters figure that lot out.

Pitch perfect from the Queen, raising a glass of gin to her.

The British public aren't going to do this mask thing are they...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11579265/brits-parks-heatwave-sunbathe-social-distancing/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8299847/Glorious-sun-home-VE-Day.html

Social distancing now very much a 'concept' rather than actuality.

https://twitter.com/Crawford2k9/status/1258811846406045697?s=20

ydoethur said:

eadric said:

God save the fucking Queen

Er, what? Is this about the fucking virus party @RochdalePioneers mentioned?

Maybe something to do with the 2010 GE BBC coverage?

eadric said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The British public aren't going to do this mask thing are they...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11579265/brits-parks-heatwave-sunbathe-social-distancing/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8299847/Glorious-sun-home-VE-Day.html

No, they’re not. I think for that reason we just have to take this ‘on the chin’. Let the virus rip. Let many old and enormously fat people die. We will endure

I am certainly going to stand out when I go out with my half face respirator mask and goggles....

OllyT said:

Flatlander said:

More anecdata:
Wacky races outside on a urban main road in the Yorkshire Flatlands. More cars than there have been during the working week, and they've got nowhere legitimate to go. Lockdown is breaking. Also several police cars speeding past.

Opening garden centres is going to do nothing to help. Not least because the ones breaking lockdown would never be seen in a garden centre in a million years.

The lockdown is far more likely to appear to be breaking in big cities due to the sheer number of people. Don't assume that what is happening on Primrose Hill, for example, is typical of the other 90% of the country because it probably isn't. What we are seeing in reality is people jumping the gun ahead of Sunday's announcements, much of which has been trailed in the press as though it has already happened.

And then in true Tory U-turn style the easing won't be announced on Sunday.

Theuniondivvie said:

Social distancing now very much a 'concept' rather than actuality.

https://twitter.com/Crawford2k9/status/1258811846406045697?s=20

My wife and I, watching this, both said "2 metres?" and I bet that 90%+ of the national audience said something similar with a few expletives thrown in. The BBC is peopled with prats. Disgraceful.

Foxy said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

BluestBlue said:

FrankBooth said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

The Government has no-one to blame but itself.

It’s been heavily trailing all sorts of loosening in the papers over the last few days (those articles saying that unlimited socially-distanced outdoor activity, picnics and sunbathing, and permitted mixing with only one other chosen household from Downing Street “sources” weren’t just conjured up out of thin air) but it wasn’t sure how popular it was due to far too literal reading of headline polling numbers and then chickened out at the 11th hour due to ‘care homes’, which is a disaster of its own making.

They should have made the announcement yesterday at 8pm after their review. Instead, they’ve decided to do it late on Sunday night and only give the benefits to the oldies.

It’s really pissed people off. Many were really looking forward to this weekend, and are happy to continue to act responsibly but want the Government to be reasonable.

The Government haven’t been reasonable (instead trying to tell people to “keep going” in adds yesterday) and so people have had enough and are now taking matters into their own hands.

The problem is Johnson is terrified of being unpopular (he's not used to it) and is therefore incapable of saying what he thinks people don't want to hear.

On Wednesday he tried to placate both the pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown groups and ended up annoying them both. Sunak's flip-flopping on the furlough money also suggests division and drift in the Cabinet. There's obviously a faction who thinks this has gone on long enough and the economic damage unsupportable.

This chimes with US stock market sentiment (the DJIA goes on rising and NASDAQ is positive for the year) which thinks the re-opening in several states will lead to a surge in economic activity such that in a few months the US economy will be humming along, Trump will get re-elected and all this will seem a bad dream.

Perhaps but indications are after an early surge activity remains slack - people are scared still and the US case numbers don't inspire confidence. We'll see.

That's a good summary.

My view is Johnson's chickens are going to come home to roost sooner than he thinks.

I'm still betting on him being gone before the next election.

He was made for the effortlessly good times, not a real national crisis; despite a lifetime of wanting to be Churchill, he’s always really been Macmillan.

I don't think he's MacMillan either actually. He's a bombastic newspaper columnist with, I admit, a certain appeal to people.

The MacMillan - Boris parallels are amusingly close on a bare summary of the facts:

Eton
Eton

Balliol (Lit Hum)
Balliol (Lit Hum)

Becomes Tory PM without a general election
Becomes Tory PM without a general election

Increases Tory majority 8 years into power and wins 365 seats
Increases Tory majority 9 years into power and wins 365 seats

Resigns after an epic sex scandal that had nothing to do with him
?????????????????????

It's spooky, I tell you!

You forgot to add “Undermined his party leader”.

Macmillan resigned after being hospitalised. Boris might yet do the same.

MacMillan had a distinguished war record, having been wounded on the Somme.

Johnson hosted a TV panel show...

Macmillan had no bastards.

Although his wife had at least one, of course.

I am curious though. Why do you constantly bring up the fact Johnson is a philanderer and give Corbyn a pass even though his behaviour is almost exactly comparable?

At least Starmer seems to be perfectly happily married, which I assume meets with your approval.

How many children ouside wedlock does Corbyn have? I have not heard him described as a philanderer.

For all his many faults, Corbyn seems to have a good relationship with his children.

That's alright then. A Liberal viewpoint. Didn't Hitler even like other people's children and his dog?