politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lockdown is over. What next?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

Gardenwalker said:

So, how do we think China is going to retaliate?

There are any number of things they could do:-

1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose.
2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities.
3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK.
4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.

And so on.

What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.

If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.

I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.

Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.

So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.

It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.

I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.

This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.

Economic warfare is going to help no one.

China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1266651640330928131

And same applies to Wales but not a word about that

The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.

I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1266651640330928131

And same applies to Wales but not a word about that

The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.

I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.

Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1266692682912497667

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1266693594112339970

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1266694120686395400

kinabalu said:

Socky said:

kinabalu said:

"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."

Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡

The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.

It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.

This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".

Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...

PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1266651640330928131

And same applies to Wales but not a word about that

The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.

I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.

Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.

5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.

Richard_Tyndall said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

Gardenwalker said:

So, how do we think China is going to retaliate?

There are any number of things they could do:-

1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose.
2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities.
3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK.
4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.

And so on.

What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.

If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.

I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.

Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.

So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.

It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.

I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.

This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.

Economic warfare is going to help no one.

China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.

It is not a question of benefit of the doubt, it is a question of accepting reality.

The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.

To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.

This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.

There are many things we can and should do. The first and most obvious is, as I said earlier, to give all HK citizens the right of settlement in the UK. We agreed with China that this would not happen as part of a package of agreements that China is now reneging on. As such we would be perfectly justified in extending those rights. That in itself would massively undermine Hong Kong's status as a financial centre if the Chinese chose to continue to erode democracy there.

We should also fall into line with the rest of the 5-Eyes countries and cut China out of 5G development in the UK. Also ban them from involvement in big infrastructure projects. There are many things we could do and there are ready made alliances that we are part of to allow us to do it if we choose.

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1266651640330928131

And same applies to Wales but not a word about that

The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.

I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.

Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.

5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.

That’s its population, not its size.

Richard_Tyndall said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

Gardenwalker said:

So, how do we think China is going to retaliate?

There are any number of things they could do:-

1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose.
2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities.
3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK.
4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.

And so on.

What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.

If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.

I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.

Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.

So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.

It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.

I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.

This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.

Economic warfare is going to help no one.

China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.

It is not a question of benefit of the doubt, it is a question of accepting reality.

The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.

To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.

This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.

There are many things we can and should do. The first and most obvious is, as I said earlier, to give all HK citizens the right of settlement in the UK. We agreed with China that this would not happen as part of a package of agreements that China is now reneging on. As such we would be perfectly justified in extending those rights. That in itself would massively undermine Hong Kong's status as a financial centre if the Chinese chose to continue to erode democracy there.

We should also fall into line with the rest of the 5-Eyes countries and cut China out of 5G development in the UK. Also ban them from involvement in big infrastructure projects. There are many things we could do and there are ready made alliances that we are part of to allow us to do it if we choose.

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Sedgefield declaration and Blair's count.

Labour majority of 24,000.

Sedgefield won by Boris last December

Really? I thought he stood for a seat in London.

Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.

It voted for Boris more than the Tories

But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.

May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.

So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead

Wait for tonight's leader approval ratings

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I was a vague Tory supporter (as a kid) in 1997, but I remember a sneaking optimism that actually New Labour would sort some things out that needed it. Swept along in the general optimism of the time. When they didn't, and what they actually did was piss a golden economic legacy up the wall, it became a defining moment for me politically, and I was a firm right-winger, though not always a Tory, ever since.

Golden economic legacy is a creative way to describe the denuded public realm. Hats off to you.

Denuded public realm is a creative way to describe less taxpayer's money being wasted. Hats off to you.

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.

What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.

When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.

That changed, at least in London.

Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡

Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.

I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.

He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.

It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.

https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_deficit_as_a_proportion_of_gdp.png

Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.

Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over

The question for the House will be -

"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"

And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".

Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.

Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.

Clumsy.

Malmesbury said:

another_richard said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1266674846211211265?s=20
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1266679784064667648?s=20

I like the comment "journalists should know better".

If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.

I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.

She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.

She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.

All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.

I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.

WTFF?

Theuniondivvie said:

eadric said:

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1266651640330928131

And same applies to Wales but not a word about that

The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.

I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.

Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.

5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.

That’s its population, not its size.

Do you think I hadnt noticed? It makes more sense for coverage to be related to people rather than sq metres. Anyway, you know perfectly well what I am saying, as do other readers, whether you or they agree or not.

When anyone says “England is ten times bigger than Scotland” the meaning is entirely clear.

I detect a strain of Celtic inferiority complex at work

I applaud your philosophical acceptance of Cornwall being a diddy wee place.

ydoethur said:

Another milestone:

Today is the 50th day since the last time electricity was generated using coal in the UK.

At this moment, we have 16.3% generated from wind, 33.3% generated from Solar, and 0.75% from hydro.

However, two caveats:

1) Demand’s on the floor (apparently there’s some medical problem or other that has shut loads of factories);

2) The reason we have so much solar is because we have had the driest, warmest and sunniest May since a freak spring in 1896. If somebody wishes to convince me that the lack of particles in the air is not linked to this, I am eager to be persuaded but you may find it uphill work.

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.

Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Socky said:

kinabalu said:

"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."

Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡

The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.

It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.

This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".

Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...

PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.

Restricting what companies could put into employee pension funds (to increasing corporation tax) and removing the ability to reclaim the 10% dividend withholding tax if you didn't have taxable income to set it against. Both screwed pension funds and partly lead to the pension disaster and were effectively just hidden taxes on employees that they just didn't see and weren't aware of (ie moving funds from pensions to the treasury)

Finally the 10% and then 0% band of corporation tax on very small companies that was so obviously pointless, had to be amended every year because of abuse, making it more and more complicated, did not encourage a single person to set up a business because the income level was so, so low and was scraped the year after the final change. Just pointless fiddling and messing up peoples lives (not least the fabled or possibly real plethora of milkmen who set up limited companies to exploit it for a few tens of pounds they then paid over to accountants for preparing what should have been the simplest of accounts).

Malmesbury said:

another_richard said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1266674846211211265?s=20
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1266679784064667648?s=20

I like the comment "journalists should know better".

If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.

I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.

She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.

She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.

All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.

I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.

WTFF?

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:

Tynemouth
Leeds NE
Batley
Wirral S
Crosby / Sefton C
Birmingham Edgbaston
Birmingham Hall Green
Southampton Test
Harrow W
Brent N
Ealing N
Hayes
Westminster N
Eltham
Mitcham

and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:

Leeds NW
Sheffield Hallam
Lancaster
Chester
Wirral W
Hove
Brighton Kemptown
Enfield N
Enfield Southgate
Ealing Acton
Brentford
Ilford N
Putney
Battersea
Croydon C
Cardiff N
Bristol W

I'm sure I've missed some.

An interesting list would be a Tory holds in 1997 that are no longer Tory.

Off-hand the only one I can think of is Westmorland and Lonsdale. Are there any others?

Edit - Canterbury as well, of course.

Canterbury is the only seat the Tories held in 1997 they lost in 2019

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?

No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?

eadric said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.

Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.

Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality

eadric said:

Lol. Stuff like this WILL get Trump re-elected

https://twitter.com/realjameswoods/status/1266632344732962816?s=21

eristdoof said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

It's a bit wierd that someone would find this passive aggressive.

Andy_JS said:

Gardenwalker said:

I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.

What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.

When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.

That changed, at least in London.

IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.

Cyclefree said:

Anyway, random family fact of the day:

On 7 May 2012 the University of Cambridge granted my Irish great-uncle, a 31 year-old doctor, a certificate stating that he had proved himself by -

“his KNOWLEDGE and SKILL in SANITARY SCIENCE, to wit in Chemistry and Physics in the causes and prevention of Epidemic and Infectious Diseases and in the means of remedying or ameliorating those Circumstances and Conditions of life which are know to be injurious to health as well as in the Laws of the Realm relating to Public Health is CERTIFIED to be well qualified in respect of Knowledge and Skill aforesaid to fulfil the Duties of a Medical Officer of Health.”

On 8 September 1915, having joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, he died of his wounds. Septicaemia, ironically enough. His family did not realise how ill he was.

Epidemic and Infectious Diseases are always with us. And always will be.

eadric said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eadric said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.

Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.

Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality

Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.

Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997

I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’

kjh said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Socky said:

kinabalu said:

"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."

Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡

The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.

It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.

This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".

Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...

PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.

Restricting what companies could put into employee pension funds (to increasing corporation tax) and removing the ability to reclaim the 10% dividend withholding tax if you didn't have taxable income to set it against. Both screwed pension funds and partly lead to the pension disaster and were effectively just hidden taxes on employees that they just didn't see and weren't aware of (ie moving funds from pensions to the treasury)

Finally the 10% and then 0% band of corporation tax on very small companies that was so obviously pointless, had to be amended every year because of abuse, making it more and more complicated, did not encourage a single person to set up a business because the income level was so, so low and was scraped the year after the final change. Just pointless fiddling and messing up peoples lives (not least the fabled or possibly real plethora of milkmen who set up limited companies to exploit it for a few tens of pounds they then paid over to accountants for preparing what should have been the simplest of accounts).

And having venting my spleen on what Gordon did wrong it is only fair to say what I thought Labour did right (Tony rather than Gordon though).

I thought they started really well in 1997 by announcing at the beginning the independence of the Bank of England and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The Tories should be really ashamed they did not do the latter. I hope my memory is correct on those events.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.

What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.

When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.

That changed, at least in London.

Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡

Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.

I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.

He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.

It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.

https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_deficit_as_a_proportion_of_gdp.png

Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.

Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over

The question for the House will be -

"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"

And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".

Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.

Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.

Clumsy.

Quite a defensive question that given that the prior spending wasn't a cause of it at all, and that when Darling opened the taps in 2018 it was to keep the crisis from becoming a meltdown.

Andy_JS said:

Gardenwalker said:

I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.

What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.

When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.

That changed, at least in London.

IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.

isam said:

...

eadric said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eadric said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.

Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.

Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality

Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.

Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997

I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’

Spending warm summer days indoors
Writing frightening verse
of a strange haired girl
with a lack of mirth

Philip_Thompson said:

I disagree with David's assumption that there will be a rise in cases ... And therefore all that follows from that.

Based on the evidence from other countries that have lifted lockdown before us plus the evidence that people are going to continue to socially distance then it seems quite probable that R will remain below 1.

If that happens we won't reach herd immunity. There will be a long tail (flattening the curve graphs had this at the start) as the number of cases and deaths logarithmically trends down.

There will be far more economic devastation from ongoing social distancing than there will be increases in deaths. But I can't see an alternative as people will continue to voluntarily socially distance whether we want them to or not.

The reality is people are educated now and will take matters into their own hands. As is quite appropriate. The reality is people are worried about death not just for themselves but their friends and families too. Ultimately I don't want my loved ones to die far more than any politicians don't want them to die: to me my loved ones are precious to politicians they're tragic statistics if they do.

Taking precautions is logical and doesn't need enforcement.

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Andy_JS said:

Gardenwalker said:

I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.

What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.

When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.

That changed, at least in London.

IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.

John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.

Yes and Jubilee line too

eristdoof said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

It's a bit wierd that someone would find this passive aggressive.

Andy_JS said:

eadric said:

Lol. Stuff like this WILL get Trump re-elected

https://twitter.com/realjameswoods/status/1266632344732962816?s=21

Not Portland again? As you say this is playing into Trump's hands.

Andy_JS said:

1997 was the last election I can remember when there were lots of party posters on lampposts, in people's windows, cars, etc. In 2001 people didn't bother and haven't since. (I was still at school at the time).

eadric said:

isam said:

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new silver bullet that's going to destroy the EssEnnPee once and for all.

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1266479787314483200?s=20

This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1266642984675745793?s=19

I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.

Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?

No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?

tim on here was always going on about Cameron's hair. His avatar was of a bald David Cameron. Ed Miliband was constantly judged by his appearance, as was Jeremy Corbyn. Farage is mocked for his teeth and clothes. So I dont think it's correct to say it's only female politicans that have this fuss made of their appearance, or that Digby Jones is obsessed by Nicola Sturgeon's. He has just made a comment about her.

In that Twitter debate about Sturgeon’s curiously perfect hairdo in a time of cholera, someone says that she is almost certainly wearing a wig

On reflection I think that’s right. Look at a dozen different photos of her and the hair never changes (plague or no plague). Even the occasional ruffled bits look the same.

It’s quite clever. The unchanging ‘haircut‘ adds to her general demeanour of steadfast calm.