Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some Tories are getting very nervy about Starmer

SystemSystem Posts: 12,618
edited May 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some Tories are getting very nervy about Starmer

A big COVID-19 political event today has been Keir Starmer’s broadcast response as leader of the opposition to Johnson TV address to the nation last night.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,188
    edited May 2020
    She is thick as mince, I really get annoyed at people with no grasp of history or precedent.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,968
    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    The country has an opposition once more. That can only be good for the sake of the nation.

    Long may Labour be an effective opposition. I'd be very happy if Labour are an effective opposition for the rest of this decade.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,496
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    She is thick as mince, I really get annoyed at people with no grasp of history or precedence.

    Or of precedent...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,188
    Honestly I thought Laura Pidcock was bad, what has the North East done to deserve these delightful MPs?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
    Out of curiosity does the immunity fade away because the body sheds its antibodies or they fade away somehow?

    Or does the immunity fade away because the virus mutates away from your bodies antibodies so is less recognised until it becomes unrecognisable?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,938
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
    If we get a vaccine developed and everyone is vaccinated, even if the vaccine wears off after a year say we've got immunity at that point because there is noone who can pass the virus on
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,637
    Scott_xP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    She is thick as mince, I really get annoyed at people with no grasp of history or precedence.

    Or of precedent...
    Probably his way of sneaking a first in. Cheeky bugger.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Honestly I thought Laura Pidcock was bad, what has the North East done to deserve these delightful MPs?

    Labour took their own voters for granted for too long.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,188
    Scott_xP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    She is thick as mince, I really get annoyed at people with no grasp of history or precedence.

    Or of precedent...
    Ducking auto-correct.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,593
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
    If we get a vaccine developed and everyone is vaccinated, even if the vaccine wears off after a year say we've got immunity at that point because there is noone who can pass the virus on
    In theory. Worked for smallpox, eventually.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    I'm not scared of Starmer!
  • humbuggerhumbugger Posts: 377
    Starmer fanboy Mike Smithson calls a young female MP a fool. Not very gentlemanly I'm afraid.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    She should be punished for being so ignorant by being confined to her house and only allowed to shop for food and banned from watching any live sport and visiting garden centres imho
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,637
    humbugger said:

    Starmer fanboy Mike Smithson calls a young female MP a fool. Not very gentlemanly I'm afraid.

    The comment was pretty foolish though.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    edited May 2020
    Re from last thread, somebody asking why the doom and gloom.

    Should say that the likes of Prof Farzan, who really really know their onions, are very confident that a vaccine can be found. And this virus has lots of weaknesses that are quite well understood and so tools to get from the toolkit to try and treat it.

    I was expressing a take that the government and close advisers were of a particular mindset. Vallance himself was very very cautious over any talk of success vaccines and Witty said yet again we will have to live with this for a very long time. And we have to remember even if / when one is found that there will be time before all us plebs get it, and more than likely that such a quick development might well result one that is quite a long way short of 100% effective, and that we might have to repeat the process again in a year or two.

    The questions from / and I think the public in general seem to be of the opinion if we just hide away for another couple of months, everything will be back to normal. That's why the do we really need to go back to work or school yet, I don't think it is safe.

    My take away from the reactions, is that the briefing within government is the economy has really bad outlook, both the damage of the lockdown and continual "Covid safe" operation. And that the overall numbers of infections is at a level where there is no real "community immunity" and a second wave is inevitable.

    And thus there isn't realistically in the short term ever going to be "safe", rather different levels of risk. And why the incredulity of the egg-heads about if "Stay Alert" is the exactly the correct two words to use.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    I see that Mike is still in denial about Starmer's inability to score in open goals.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    This is good.

    https://youtu.be/fII1zsQeTTY
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    humbugger said:

    Starmer fanboy Mike Smithson calls a young female MP a fool. Not very gentlemanly I'm afraid.

    It was a pretty stupid tweet and shows the risks of jabbering away on twatter.

    I suppose you could make the defence that she might still have been in primary school the last time such an event happened. But even so a bit of research would have been a good idea.

    If she has sense she'll learn from the mistake.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,994
    Posted from the end of the previous thread, as it seems more relevant to this one.
    I 'm not sure how anybody feels sufficiently confident to judge Starmer's prospects yet - indeed, I find it a bit remarkable that so many are so sure of his future fortunes. I've no idea how good, or bad, he will prove to be in the medium term. He has been leader of the LP for just over five weeks, at an extraordinary time of crisis. Of course he has had to be measured and statesmanlike (or dull if you prefer); even Boris has recognised this is not a time for flippancy or jokes, has he not? The crisis means that Starmer has had little opportunity to develop a public profile. His Shadow Cabinet are even less visible because of the crisis - and I suspect time will reveal that the Labour front bench is more able than its Tory counterpart, but we won't know that for at least a year I imagine. I've no doubt that Starmer has also devoted much attention behind the scenes to sorting out party organisational matters, and the crisis has given him some space to do that; the benefits can already be seen in consistency of message across the front bench. And as for Jess Phillips being next leader, I think not. Whether Starmer succeeds or fails, I wouldn't put money on anybody other than Lisa Nandy for now, though this may change.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,053
    humbugger said:

    Starmer fanboy Mike Smithson calls a young female MP a fool. Not very gentlemanly I'm afraid.

    Dopes this gentlemanly think apply to all female MPs or just Tory ones?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,053
    another_richard said:

    I see that Mike is still in denial about Starmer's inability to score in open goals.


    Starmer has plenty of time to make his mark. He is already giving the Tories more to think about than Corbyn ever did.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,496
    https://twitter.com/GerriPeev/status/1259956985103073281
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 810
    From memory OGH believes in leader ratings and I don't think anyone will argue Starmer's won't be good. The biggest crybabies right now are Corbynistas, who are setting Twitter alight but their range doesn't extend far beyond there.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,410
    edited May 2020
    Is it just me or have the Lib Dems not been mentioned anywhere in the national media for the last two months?

    I don't know at all who is even leading them these days and I do try to keep an eye on politics. Fourth largest party at Westminster and nothing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    edited May 2020
    Yokes said:

    Is it just me or have the Lib Dems not been mentioned anywhere in the national media for the last two months?

    I don't know at all who is even leading them these days and I do try to keep an eye on politics. Fourth largest party at Westminster and nothing.

    The Lib whos? Should I have heard of them?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Of course some Tories are a little worried - though if they are getting truly worried this early in the term that's an overreaction - they've not faced something like Starmer for years. They get nervous when a lead in the polls threaten to go below 10, they've forgotten how low you can go between terms.
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Trump is so rude and obnoxious its barely believable. How did this arsehole ever become President?

    I think a lot of people deep down wish they could be that rude and obnoxious without consequence.
  • Swindon_AddickSwindon_Addick Posts: 21
    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    OllyT said:

    another_richard said:

    I see that Mike is still in denial about Starmer's inability to score in open goals.


    Starmer has plenty of time to make his mark. He is already giving the Tories more to think about than Corbyn ever did.
    Starmer has time, opportunity and indeed a responsibility to make a mark.

    But Corbyn got to 40% at the 2017 GE and led in the polls for most of the following year - that really gave the Conservatives something to think about.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/GerriPeev/status/1259956985103073281

    I don't think she does, unless the people the tweeter means share the exact reason for that phrase that the MP had, which I doubt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Honestly I thought Laura Pidcock was bad, what has the North East done to deserve these delightful MPs?

    New MPs can be given some leeway for at least part of their first terms. It's the one's who still act like fools years or decades in that are problematic, particularly the ones who don't learn from defeat.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,294
    The Tories should demand Starmer be given airtime. Labour have chosen a dud
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Monkeys said:

    From memory OGH believes in leader ratings and I don't think anyone will argue Starmer's won't be good. The biggest crybabies right now are Corbynistas, who are setting Twitter alight but their range doesn't extend far beyond there.

    Starmer's getting reasonably good leader approval ratings. Latest from Opinium had him at a net plus of 18% just behind Johnson on 20%.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    edited May 2020
    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Will Boris even want to. I presume he thought Get Brexit Done 2020, well somebody else negotiate getting Brexit done and then be easy street.

    Instead he is probably got at least 2-3 years of dealing with Coronavirus (and longer to deal with the economic fall out) and Brexit deal will get delayed for another year at least.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    FPT
    Ydoethur said-
    '280 seats would require (excl. SNP/PC held seats) a UNS of c. 3.5%.

    Not hard to see that happening.

    However, that’s on existing boundaries, although they favour Labour rather less than they did. They will of course almost certainly be different come an election.

    But it won’t be easy. They will have to work for it. '

    I am not clear as to how you arrive at that.

    A swing of 3.5% from Con only produces 34 Labour gains. Add in a few from SNP and Plaid and Labour only gets back to circa 240 seats.
    To get to 280 seats, Labour would need 77 net gains.70 of those gains would have to be at Tory expense - but implies a swing of circa 6.5%.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,496
    https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1259956982196436994
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,927
    https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1259950708721418240?s=19
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    RobD said:

    humbugger said:

    Starmer fanboy Mike Smithson calls a young female MP a fool. Not very gentlemanly I'm afraid.

    The comment was pretty foolish though.
    Not knowing the response for Starmer was not unprecendented is one thing, making her outraged tone more unreasonable. But if she holds her hand up and accepts her concern was wrong, that would be a good sign. Not sure many MPs would do that though - admitting you were ever wrong, even on a triviality, is painted as weakness.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,927
    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Javid has zero ability, ditto Raab and Patel. Sunak or Gove are head and shoulders above the other contenders.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1259954866513993729?s=19
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,221
    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    I'd not be surprised if Boris resigns but it is too hard to identify his successor without knowing the timing. Most "next prime ministers" never make it to Number 10. Cecil Parkinson, John Moore, David Miliband, to name but three. Boris failed as hot favourite in 2016 and who would have backed Theresa May? Or Boris after 2016? You have a point about laying Starmer if the next PM will be a Tory because Boris has stepped down but it could mean tying up money for too long.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    @Luckyguy1983 just bought some masks from that shopping channel. We’ll see what they are like.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,237
    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1259956982196436994

    America was a great country once.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    Scott_xP said:

    twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1259956982196436994

    Putting aside big babies response, I really hate this tendency to not ask a question, but to really state an opinion with a question mark at the end. That was basically I don't like your spin on testing numbers as the death rate is too high.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    Yokes said:

    Is it just me or have the Lib Dems not been mentioned anywhere in the national media for the last two months?

    I don't know at all who is even leading them these days and I do try to keep an eye on politics. Fourth largest party at Westminster and nothing.

    To an extent the LibDems aren't a national party any more but restricted to Thames Valley poshos, those parts of Scotland where they have cornered the unionist vote and Tim Farron.

    Traditionally local and parliamentary by-elections would give them good publicity but we're not getting many of those imminently. Even Thursday nights at Dunny On The Wold parish council aren't available.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    KentRising said:

    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Javid has zero ability, ditto Raab and Patel. Sunak or Gove are head and shoulders above the other contenders.
    Certainly a fresh bunch. If wikipedia is to be believed only Hancock has been in the Cabinet continuously since 2018 if you don't count the Lords Leader. Though Buckland at least was highly placed as Solicitor General for across that time.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    edited May 2020
    KentRising said:

    twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1259950708721418240?s=19

    Its missing the crucial bit of information that this sampling was taken several weeks after the peak.

    Secondly, the "error range" is wrong,

    "It is estimated that 0.24% of the population in England tested positive for COVID-19 (95% confidence interval: 0.14% to 0.40%)."

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurvey/england10may2020
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    rottenborough said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1259956982196436994

    America was a great country once.
    Isn't that Trump's whole pitch? That's why he wants to make it great 'again'.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,237
    Betting Post:

    https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1259850002693787649
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,410
    another_richard said:

    Yokes said:

    Is it just me or have the Lib Dems not been mentioned anywhere in the national media for the last two months?

    I don't know at all who is even leading them these days and I do try to keep an eye on politics. Fourth largest party at Westminster and nothing.

    To an extent the LibDems aren't a national party any more but restricted to Thames Valley poshos, those parts of Scotland where they have cornered the unionist vote and Tim Farron.

    Traditionally local and parliamentary by-elections would give them good publicity but we're not getting many of those imminently. Even Thursday nights at Dunny On The Wold parish council aren't available.
    Maybe but they are a national party in all practicality with representation around the place. I actually had to look up that Jo Swinson was still leader.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,237
    kle4 said:

    rottenborough said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1259956982196436994

    America was a great country once.
    Isn't that Trump's whole pitch? That's why he wants to make it great 'again'.
    Yes, but not in the way I meant. They were leader of the free world, a bastion of democracy and the rule of law. Not a banana republic run by a perma-tanned reality TV dweep.

  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    https://twitter.com/Swerdlick/status/1259959266032726022
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,221
    rottenborough said:

    Betting Post:

    https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1259850002693787649

    You are right. Party-specific deficit hawkism is a feature of Republican politics.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,053
    another_richard said:

    OllyT said:

    another_richard said:

    I see that Mike is still in denial about Starmer's inability to score in open goals.


    Starmer has plenty of time to make his mark. He is already giving the Tories more to think about than Corbyn ever did.
    Starmer has time, opportunity and indeed a responsibility to make a mark.

    But Corbyn got to 40% at the 2017 GE and led in the polls for most of the following year - that really gave the Conservatives something to think about.
    True but I doubt there was ever a time when the Tories weren't privately delighted that Corbyn was their opponent.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,237
    https://twitter.com/JoeySalads/status/1259960579650777088

    Clearly the private polling is utterly shit for Trump.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    If Starmer achieves less than 40% I will be surprised and also he should be disappointed.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited May 2020
    Apols for lengthy quote but from https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts (Beale is an immunologist at the Crick and argues that vaccination is the only sustainable way to produce herd immunity):

    Measuring immunity is important, but it isn’t easy. The most obvious way is to look for the presence of antibodies. But antibodies to what? The virus has many components. Its main entry weapon is known as Spike. This is a large, sugar-coated protein complex that can rip a hole in the membrane of a cell to allow the virus to enter. Block Spike, and you keep the virus out. It’s easy enough to measure antibodies to Spike, but not all of them actually prevent the virus from entering cells. To find out whether the antibodies are doing their job effectively, you have to culture the virus in a high-containment facility, titrate tiny amounts of serum extracted from the test subject’s blood into the virus culture, and demonstrate that the serum blocks the virus. It’s painfully slow. We are working on ways to make these assays faster, easier and more accurate. So are many others, and for once I’m happy when another lab does something better. The procedure isn’t going to be useful for testing on a large scale: instead, we’ll have to correlate antibody tests with the neutralisation assays. Some of the newly developed commercial antibody tests will probably correlate well. Others will be useful only for epidemiologists as markers of infection. Until very recently, most of the widely available tests have been so inaccurate as to be useless.

    If someone outside a high-end research lab has conducted a test for you purporting to show that you are ‘immune’, I strongly caution against assuming it means anything. Lots of people have had symptoms compatible with coronavirus. In a recent draft of a study from an excellent laboratory in New York, 99.5 per cent of people who had confirmed infection developed antibodies eventually, sometimes several weeks after the test for the virus itself. Only 38 per cent of people with likely symptoms of Covid-19 – but with no positive test – had developed antibodies. Assuming that probable infection means definite immunity is a very big mistake.

    There are four ‘seasonal’ coronaviruses – 229E, OC43, NL63 and HKU1 – that cause mild disease in nearly everyone, only occasionally causing pneumonia. They can be given to healthy volunteers to study the immune response. They cause the ‘common cold’, and in experimentally infected humans they give rise to an antibody response. That response wanes after a few months, and the same people can be experimentally reinfected, though they tend to get milder symptoms the second time round. It is thought that adults get reinfected on average about once every five years. Sars-CoV-2 causes mild disease in most cases, and gives rise to antibody responses in nearly all cases. We don’t know how long these responses will last, but it is likely that people who suffer only mild disease will be susceptible to reinfection after a few months or years. Humanity has never developed ‘herd immunity’ to any coronavirus, and it’s unlikely that Sars-CoV-2 infection will be any different. If we did nothing, a likely possibility is that Covid-19 would become a recurring plague. We don’t know yet.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,237
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rottenborough said:

    Betting Post:

    https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1259850002693787649

    You are right. Party-specific deficit hawkism is a feature of Republican politics.
    Defining characteristic of the modern GOP.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    Yokes said:

    another_richard said:

    Yokes said:

    Is it just me or have the Lib Dems not been mentioned anywhere in the national media for the last two months?

    I don't know at all who is even leading them these days and I do try to keep an eye on politics. Fourth largest party at Westminster and nothing.

    To an extent the LibDems aren't a national party any more but restricted to Thames Valley poshos, those parts of Scotland where they have cornered the unionist vote and Tim Farron.

    Traditionally local and parliamentary by-elections would give them good publicity but we're not getting many of those imminently. Even Thursday nights at Dunny On The Wold parish council aren't available.
    Maybe but they are a national party in all practicality with representation around the place. I actually had to look up that Jo Swinson was still leader.
    One problem they have is that Sir Ed Davey will not be distinguishable from Sir Keir Starmer for most people.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,431
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
    If we get a vaccine developed and everyone is vaccinated, even if the vaccine wears off after a year say we've got immunity at that point because there is noone who can pass the virus on
    In theory. Worked for smallpox, eventually.
    Surely the same applies with herd immunity - if we get to a critical mess of the population infected, the disease should burn out, so long as herd immunity doesn't take so long to get it never arrives (because of fading immunity in the first ones to have the disease)
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    another_richard said:

    OllyT said:

    another_richard said:

    I see that Mike is still in denial about Starmer's inability to score in open goals.


    Starmer has plenty of time to make his mark. He is already giving the Tories more to think about than Corbyn ever did.
    Starmer has time, opportunity and indeed a responsibility to make a mark.

    But Corbyn got to 40% at the 2017 GE and led in the polls for most of the following year - that really gave the Conservatives something to think about.
    Were that to happen, I would be surprised not to see a significant Labour recovery in Scotland too.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,053
    edited May 2020
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Will Boris even want to. I presume he thought Get Brexit Done 2020, well somebody else negotiate getting Brexit done and then be easy street.

    Instead he is probably got at least 2-3 years of dealing with Coronavirus (and longer to deal with the economic fall out) and Brexit deal will get delayed for another year at least.
    He was smart enough to realise that to win the Tory leadership and then the GE he just needed to be full of bonhomie and be the most Brexity-thing on offer. I am still not convinced he is really that bothered about Brexit either way, he simply saw it as his vehicle to the top.

    The plan was all going swimmingly up till 2 months ago.

    I certainly don't think that that gruelling and depressing slog ahead is what Boris signed up for and I can quite see him jacking it in in a year or two using poor health as his get-out card.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,822
    A minority of global cases and deaths today are in Europe, the first time that's been the case for a long time.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    If Starmer achieves less than 40% I will be surprised and also he should be disappointed.

    Didn't you predict the 2019 GE would be 37% to 35% ?

    Making precise predictions is risky and especially so if you feel strongly about the issue.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    Starmer has the ability to win 270 seats, IMHO. After that it becomes tricky.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited May 2020
    In theory the question of how people can go back to work if they can't send children to school is a good one.

    However, it's been widely reported that so far schools have had a tiny fraction of expected number of pupils - ie vast majority of key workers have not been sending their children to school.

    So what have they been doing with their children? Well who knows (*) but the evidence suggests that a very high proportion of people can actually manage to go to work even if they can't send children to school.

    (*) Presumably most common solution by far is that for couples - one works whilst the other stays at home.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    MikeL said:

    In theory the question of how people can go back to work if they can't send children to school is a good one.

    However, it's been widely reported that so far schools have had a tiny fraction of expected number of pupils - ie vast majority of key workers have not been sending their children to school.

    So what have they been doing with their children? Well who knows (*) but the evidence surely suggests that a very high proportion of people can actually manage to go to work even if they can't send children to school.

    A lot of the OG “key workers” work in shifts, so two partners can do alternating shifts to look after children, although clearly not ideal.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    edited May 2020
    OllyT said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Will Boris even want to. I presume he thought Get Brexit Done 2020, well somebody else negotiate getting Brexit done and then be easy street.

    Instead he is probably got at least 2-3 years of dealing with Coronavirus (and longer to deal with the economic fall out) and Brexit deal will get delayed for another year at least.
    He was smart enough to realise that to win the Tory leadership and then the GE he just needed to be full of bonhomie and be the most Brexity-thing on offer. I am still not convinced he is really that bothered about Brexit either way, he simply saw it as his vehicle to the top.

    The plan was all going swimmingly up till 2 months ago.

    I certainly don't think that that gruelling and depressing slog ahead is what Boris signed up for and I can quite see him jacking it in in a year or two using poor health as his get-out card.
    To be honest, if Coronavirus does turn into a 2-3 year thing, I wouldn't blame any politician for saying I have done my bit, I am off. Being PM at the best of times is a day in, day out job, but dealing with a war or a global pandemic is orders of magnitude greater in terms of time and also the pressure of the decision making. Should I go with HS2 or not or dodgy Chinese company for 5G, is totally different stress to should I allow schools to reopen, because that might kill a load more people.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,822
    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1259965491344531456
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    Andy_JS said:

    twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1259965491344531456

    Has he learned the mathematical definition of stochastic yet?
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Starmer has the ability to win 270 seats, IMHO. After that it becomes tricky.

    He might get 250. Max
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259880220624146432?s=20
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259881389576650752?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
    Pretty bizarre move really. Just hold the speech or bring forward the documents, whichever worked. It wouldn't stop criticism, but it would have provided something to point to immediately.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259880220624146432?s=20
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259881389576650752?s=20

    As I said earlier, the Northern pro-Boris, pro-Brexit voters on my Facebook has started posting anti-Government and anti-Boris memes the last few days. It will be interesting to see if the polls change.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,294
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    If Starmer achieves less than 40% I will be surprised and also he should be disappointed.

    I will bet you at evens he doesn't achieve 40% at a GE
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,968
    Philip_Thompson said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
    Out of curiosity does the immunity fade away because the body sheds its antibodies or they fade away somehow?

    Or does the immunity fade away because the virus mutates away from your bodies antibodies so is less recognised until it becomes unrecognisable?
    The answer is... it's a bit of both. Antibody counts tend to slowly dip over time. Plus viruses tend to mutate. CV-19 is a slow mutating virus, so that's unlikely to be too big a problem.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
    Pretty bizarre move really. Just hold the speech or bring forward the documents, whichever worked. It wouldn't stop criticism, but it would have provided something to point to immediately.
    There was already detailed guidance on the HSE website which firms that have continued operating have been following, today’s changes are the 4th amendment to these documents/advice since March 23.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    NerysHughes said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
    Pretty bizarre move really. Just hold the speech or bring forward the documents, whichever worked. It wouldn't stop criticism, but it would have provided something to point to immediately.
    There was already detailed guidance on the HSE website which firms that have continued operating have been following, today’s changes are the 4th amendment to these documents/advice since March 23.
    Then there was even less need to rush in a speech.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,357
    Gallowgate said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259880220624146432?s=20
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259881389576650752?s=20

    As I said earlier, the Northern pro-Boris, pro-Brexit voters on my Facebook has started posting anti-Government and anti-Boris memes the last few days. It will be interesting to see if the polls change.
    One of the theories just before the 2019 GE day was that BoJo's support was a mile wide and an inch deep. I don't know when the polls will shift, but if the theory is right, the shift could be awfully sudden.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    For the curious, the full lot's here at https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/coronavirus.htm and there's specific advice on all kinds of things: the change to hours rules for drivers, first aid and equipment testing during the outbreak, RIDDOR (The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013) reporting of COVID-19 cases if it's believed the illness was contracted at work, social distancing at work, fit-test for face masks, a guide on how to protect home workers ...

    There's a short guide at https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/assets/docs/working-safely-guide.pdf which includes some points PBers may find interesting:
    - Lots of detail as you might expect about distancing, hand-washing/paper towels/sanitiser, cleaning surfaces between use
    - Talking/consulting with your workers (in fact there's a separate www.hse.gov.uk/news/assets/
    docs/talking-with-your-workers.pdf guide)
    - Identifying who is safe to come to work (bearing in mind some workers are more vulnerable to COVID, and also that if you don't have enough staff some tasks will not be safe to perform anyway)
    -.Thinking about how safe is transport to work, including staggering start/end times to make social distancing easier
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,593
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
    Boris’s address was superfluous; it hasn’t added anything except confusion.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    kle4 said:

    NerysHughes said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
    Pretty bizarre move really. Just hold the speech or bring forward the documents, whichever worked. It wouldn't stop criticism, but it would have provided something to point to immediately.
    There was already detailed guidance on the HSE website which firms that have continued operating have been following, today’s changes are the 4th amendment to these documents/advice since March 23.
    Then there was even less need to rush in a speech.
    He should have referred to them more. Starmer has been getting away with saying their was no advice for employers which he knows is a lie.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    If the Tories are stupid enough to get rid of their most electorally successful leader since Thatcher they may face the same fate they did post Thatcher, 25 years and only 1 election victory.

    Labour still has not won an election since Blair either

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    China is upset about New Zealand backing Taiwan joining the WTO.
    https://twitter.com/Rover829/status/1259752778127175688
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Starmer has the ability to win 270 seats, IMHO. After that it becomes tricky.

    270 is all he needs plus 45 odd SNP and 20 to 30 LDs
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,593
    theProle said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Anabobazina said:

    One thing I don’t grasp about PB is the apparent certainty many have that a fairly rapid vaccine and/or treatment is unlikely/impossible. This strikes me as “we are all doomed” stuff: from what I can read, the medical profession is fairly confident it can deliver a vaccine.

    Where does PB’s negativity come from? Is it just the usual drama queenery?

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/possibility-of-coronavirus-vaccine-in-next-year-incredibly-small/

    for instance (that's Chris Whitty). I have no medical expertise whatever, but if we look at some comparables: Ebola - disease identified 1976, vaccine 2019. HIV - identified early 80s, no vaccine yet (but it is a weird disease). SARS and MERS - no vaccine (but according to some, that's because the dieases fizzled out so there was no demand, no funding and no population in which to test a vaccine). Flu - vaccines made very widely available every year, but they don't work all that well: sometimes it's the wrong kind of snow, other times they work a bit in that they stop some people getting it and in other cases they reduce severity.

    As against that, I doubt whether any other diusease has had 10% of the firepower aimed at it as covid is getting. So it's all to play for, but frank uncertainty is the best position to adopt.
    Not an expert, but isn't the other point the time it takes to test a vaccine to ensure it's safe. Even if one were discovered tomorrow, it would still take several months to test to make sure it's not the new thalidomide. And it's not being discovered tomorrow.

    So it's simply impossible for us to lock down for long enough to find a vaccine without nuking the economy. All we can do is build hospital capacity, improve treatment, and minimise deaths on the road to herd immunity.
    This is the issue that Rupert Beale mentioned in the article I linked. He's pretty sure we'll get a vaccince, but how it takes to be vaccinated is the issue. OTOH "herd immunity" is not likely to be useful, not least because immunity after being infected by a coronavirus typically wears off after five years or so. So we could suffer mass death and then go through it again a few years later.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts
    That's a really interesting article, thanks for the link. The idea that immunity might be temporary at best is terrifying - I was under the impression you'd likely be immune for many years at least, and unlikely to suffer as severe symptoms for life.

    If that's the case then I suspect the answer is going to be technological and intrusive. Never mind the app on our phone, we'll probably all have to wear state-issued trackers reporting our vital signs back to a database at all times.

    The thought that this world could be the new normal for the next few years at least is unbelievably depressing. And after two months of lockdown, with barely any human contact, huge amounts of work stress, and constant fear of losing my job, I am already pretty depressed.
    Re immunity, it's a sliding scale, not a step function.

    So, you might have complete immunity for three to five years, then partial immunity for another decade.
    If we get a vaccine developed and everyone is vaccinated, even if the vaccine wears off after a year say we've got immunity at that point because there is noone who can pass the virus on
    In theory. Worked for smallpox, eventually.
    Surely the same applies with herd immunity - if we get to a critical mess of the population infected, the disease should burn out, so long as herd immunity doesn't take so long to get it never arrives (because of fading immunity in the first ones to have the disease)
    More likely it fades into the background, with low incidence, and occasional sporadic outbreaks. Just another hazard of life, and travel.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,053
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    OllyT said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Will Boris even want to. I presume he thought Get Brexit Done 2020, well somebody else negotiate getting Brexit done and then be easy street.

    Instead he is probably got at least 2-3 years of dealing with Coronavirus (and longer to deal with the economic fall out) and Brexit deal will get delayed for another year at least.
    He was smart enough to realise that to win the Tory leadership and then the GE he just needed to be full of bonhomie and be the most Brexity-thing on offer. I am still not convinced he is really that bothered about Brexit either way, he simply saw it as his vehicle to the top.

    The plan was all going swimmingly up till 2 months ago.

    I certainly don't think that that gruelling and depressing slog ahead is what Boris signed up for and I can quite see him jacking it in in a year or two using poor health as his get-out card.
    To be honest, if Coronavirus does turn into a 2-3 year thing, I wouldn't blame any politician for saying I have done my bit, I am off. Being PM at the best of times is a day in, day out job, but dealing with a war or a global pandemic is orders of magnitude greater in terms of time and also the pressure of the decision making. Should I go with HS2 or not or dodgy Chinese company for 5G, is totally different stress to should I allow schools to reopen, because that might kill a load more people.
    I agree and I'd hate to have the responsibility but I still believe that Boris will be less up for it than most of his predecessors. I think there is a reasonable chance he will not be PM by the next GE.

    Much as I dislike his character Johnson is undoubtedly a vote-winner for the Tories. Of the current cabinet I could only see Sunak making a decent fist of taking over and he still has some way to go to prove himself. Probably getting ahead of myself now!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,041
    Stuartinromford said:

    Gallowgate said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259880220624146432?s=20
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259881389576650752?s=20

    As I said earlier, the Northern pro-Boris, pro-Brexit voters on my Facebook has started posting anti-Government and anti-Boris memes the last few days. It will be interesting to see if the polls change.
    One of the theories just before the 2019 GE day was that BoJo's support was a mile wide and an inch deep. I don't know when the polls will shift, but if the theory is right, the shift could be awfully sudden.
    Its certainly possible but it might go to non-voting rather than a different party.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Starmer has the ability to win 270 seats, IMHO. After that it becomes tricky.

    270 is all he needs plus 45 odd SNP and 20 to 30 LDs
    If Labour advances to that extent in England & Wales, I do not see the SNP on 45 seats. More likely they fall back to circa 30 with Labour on circa 285.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,294
    OllyT said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    OllyT said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Swindon_Addick said:

    I honestly don't expect Johnson to lead the Tories into the next election. They tend to be ruthless once they realise their leader is a liability, which is one of the reasons they don't lose very often.

    Time to back a prominent Tory with some sort of attention to detail but enough pro-Leave credentials to satisfy the members, if you're into the "next prime minister" market. Javid was available at 33-1 last time I looked. Or just bet against Starmer, whose odds are pretty short but who can't be the next PM if Johnson doesn't last to 2024.

    Will Boris even want to. I presume he thought Get Brexit Done 2020, well somebody else negotiate getting Brexit done and then be easy street.

    Instead he is probably got at least 2-3 years of dealing with Coronavirus (and longer to deal with the economic fall out) and Brexit deal will get delayed for another year at least.
    He was smart enough to realise that to win the Tory leadership and then the GE he just needed to be full of bonhomie and be the most Brexity-thing on offer. I am still not convinced he is really that bothered about Brexit either way, he simply saw it as his vehicle to the top.

    The plan was all going swimmingly up till 2 months ago.

    I certainly don't think that that gruelling and depressing slog ahead is what Boris signed up for and I can quite see him jacking it in in a year or two using poor health as his get-out card.
    To be honest, if Coronavirus does turn into a 2-3 year thing, I wouldn't blame any politician for saying I have done my bit, I am off. Being PM at the best of times is a day in, day out job, but dealing with a war or a global pandemic is orders of magnitude greater in terms of time and also the pressure of the decision making. Should I go with HS2 or not or dodgy Chinese company for 5G, is totally different stress to should I allow schools to reopen, because that might kill a load more people.
    I agree and I'd hate to have the responsibility but I still believe that Boris will be less up for it than most of his predecessors. I think there is a reasonable chance he will not be PM by the next GE.

    Much as I dislike his character Johnson is undoubtedly a vote-winner for the Tories. Of the current cabinet I could only see Sunak making a decent fist of taking over and he still has some way to go to prove himself. Probably getting ahead of myself now!
    I think both would beat Starmer easily, if he were up against anyone else he might win
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,968
    Yokes said:

    Is it just me or have the Lib Dems not been mentioned anywhere in the national media for the last two months?

    I don't know at all who is even leading them these days and I do try to keep an eye on politics. Fourth largest party at Westminster and nothing.

    Who?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,977
    Gallowgate said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259880220624146432?s=20
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1259881389576650752?s=20

    As I said earlier, the Northern pro-Boris, pro-Brexit voters on my Facebook has started posting anti-Government and anti-Boris memes the last few days. It will be interesting to see if the polls change.
    Out of interest, what sort of memes? What are they most angry about? Do they have the same concerns as the twitterati, or are they different?

    I've not been on Facebook for a long time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Starmer has the ability to win 270 seats, IMHO. After that it becomes tricky.

    270 is all he needs plus 45 odd SNP and 20 to 30 LDs
    If Labour advances to that extent in England & Wales, I do not see the SNP on 45 seats. More likely they fall back to circa 30 with Labour on circa 285.
    Maybe but it does not really matter whether 270 Labour and 45 SNP or 285 Labour and 30 SNP they would still be the same number of anti Tory block MPs
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,350
    IanB2 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    NerysHughes said:

    I have read all the guidance on the HSE website regarding the requirements that employers must carry out to protect their staff. It’s very detailed and comprehensive. The HSE will also be carrying out far more spot checks to ensure compliance. It’s worth a read.

    If they had released all the documents at the same time as Boris gave his speech, they wouldn't have got half the incoming.
    Boris’s address was superfluous; it hasn’t added anything except confusion.
    Viewing figures between 27 and 30 million

    That is a huge figure
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Ave_it said:

    CorrectHorseBattery said:

    Starmer has the ability to win 270 seats, IMHO. After that it becomes tricky.

    He might get 250. Max
    But that is ridiculous really! Could we have predicted in May 2006 that Cameron and the Tories would win 306 in May 2010? How many people in June 1966 were predicting a Tory victory four years later? How many were predicting in the Autumn of 1960 that the Tories would lose office four years later? In all cases , the answer was ' Very Few indeed' because nobody really had a clue. Much the same is true now.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,714
    News of Scotland's first confirmed coronavirus case, in Tayside, was announced on 1 March.

    The BBC can reveal the virus had been brought to Scotland the week before.

    An outbreak began in Edinburgh on 26 and 27 of February at a conference for the sportswear giant Nike. More than 70 employees from all over the world attended the conference at the Hilton Carlton Hotel.... At least 25 people linked to this one event are confirmed to have been infected

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-52617895

    Conference = another super spreader event...
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025