politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is becoming big problem for the Johnson/Cummings regime

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.

Nope wrong again.

LadyG said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

Couldn't agree more. Leave's campaign was only brilliant in comparison to Remain.

Do you think if Leave had campaigned on immigration like Farage wanted instead of changing the battle onto extra money for the NHS etc that the Leave campaign would have been better or worse?

Leave would probably have done worse, although Immigration was a popular issue. Remain never managed to get on the front foot. It was absolute pants compared with 1975.

Alternatively, Remain wasn't pants, it was a standard issue campaign with some good moments and decent performers - like Ruth Davidson in the debates - it was just confronted with an unexpectedly brilliant opponent, who out-thought them

eg TAKE BACK CONTROL

That is electioneering genius. Very hard to refute or deny, without sounding mad or boring

Take Back Control was indeed very good. However, as we here all recognise elections, referenda etc are not won or lost in the campaign; that's just the final push.
And Leave pushed and pushed in the three or four years before.Cameron didn't mind too much because it was taking the pressure off the Governments economic policy. Then, having shafted the pro-EU LibDems in the 2015 election (although they didn't help themselves) he found himself short of allies.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1277965687856586753?s=20

The problem for the EU is that the UK lets anyone in. I could fly from the US to the UK and then straight on to Madrid.

Not that I have Coronavirus.

Not if the UK maintains 14 day self quarantine for US arrivals. AIUI the proposal is to keep that in place, except for certain countries - the same list as the EU presumably - who have been clear that we either offer quarantine free access to all, or UK arrivals in the EU would face quarantine.

But the self quarantine rules are a joke. I get off at Heathrow from Atlanta and jump onto the tube without a mask.

I mean, WTF?

WTF, indeed.
Wear a bloody mask.

kamski said:

contrarian said:

The one thing peculiar thing about all criticisms of Trump are that they boil down to manner rather than policy. As I've posted before its like they come from the head of some sort of political finishing school.

What an uncouth fellow. Did you know he shouted at some female leaders! We're talking about people who have dined on the entrails of their competitors to get where they are, but that's OK because they did it in the RIGHT way. They didn;t upset any journalists. They listened to think tanks and didn;t call out sacked advisors when they vented their spleen.

They caved in to the Erdogans and Putins of this world, but crucially they acted tough and pulled stern faces when needed. When the press were there. Which is what counts.

Its amazing really.

"all criticisms of Trump" what a pile of crap.

what about off the top of my head:
attacking Obamacare
massive tax giveaways to the superrich - with a big increase in govt to pay for it
massive boosts to fossil fuels and going for global suicide via overheating
stripping anti-pollution and environmental laws
nepotism
support for white supremacists
appointing loads of ultra-conservative judiciary
separation of families
open racism

besides, it's not just "shouting at some female leaders" it's about trashing US alliances and sucking up to dictators.

Now, these might all be things you approve of, but they are also things that Trump is criticised for which are actually matters of policy rather than manner.

Blimey you just proved my point. talk about a Private Eye....er......that's it list. laughable. Really weak. Often completely wrong too.

Appointing loads of ultra-conservative judges who.....er......recently made a number of high profile rulings against the administration for example.

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

NerysHughes said:

Malmesbury said:

On the subject of spikes in cases - a scary looking graphics of hotspots was posted in the other thread.

So I looked at the Pillar 1 data. See below. I have coloured any days where more than 5 cases occurred to make them stand out.

I particularly like the Isle of Wight, 3 cases in the whole of June and the story was reposted on here as if gospel that there were a spike of cases on the Island.

It's just pillar 1, so there are more cases than that. But Pillar 1 data was used to write the story!

Isle of Wight is an obvious tell that the story was rubbish - there has been a serious lack of cases. I have a feeling that it got included in the story because of this - https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/18549892.coronavirus-university-research-names-isle-wight-potential-second-wave-hotspot which is saying, essentially, that *if* COVID took off there, it would be bad.

It is interesting, as well, to see how Leicester stands out. Rather validates the idea that a lock down was ordered *before* things got out of hand again - indications over the last couple of weeks, and then definite changes last week.

This chart from the Daily Mail perhaps illustrates it better. I would ignore places with fewer than 5 as likely to be sporadic variation in R number. In Leicester the r number looks to be about 1.

Doncaster, Derbyshire, Medway and several boroughs in West London look problematic though.

In fact the story would have worked if they hadn't got greedy - just the ones with cases>10 AND increasing, albeit with very low actual numbers. But some are just stupid -the Wilts case included (my area)

But an increase from 0 to 1 is MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION BAZZILION PERCENT!!!!!!

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think most former PMs have recognised their place and given space to their successors.

That the worst PM since Lord North hasn't perhaps shouldn't be a shock.

The worst PM since Lord North, and possibly well before is currently in office. TMay was bad, but she was a consummate professional compared to Johnson. She had some leadership ability, he has none.

She absolutely didn't. That was the problem. Her idea of leadership was to say nothing for a very long time and then announce things with no consultation, no consensus building, no allies and ultimately pretty much no followers.

I still think the deal that she did with the EU was a good compromise, better than Boris's in some respect. But her leadership skills were such she could not deliver it. Selling ice cold water in the Sahara on a sunny day would be beyond that woman, it really would. She was awful. I hesitate to say worse than Brown (at least she did make her mind up eventually) but right up there with worst PMs of the last 100 years or so.

I have been evaluating leadership skills for two decades. I can assure you that while she scores lower than you would want for an executive leader, she scores higher than Boris Johnson, by a long way. He is utterly hopeless, only those with no understanding of leadership ability would think otherwise.

I know you're so blinded by rage over Brexit you've lost all critical thinking but come on!

To put it in a way @TheScreamingEagles should understand (but likely won't agree with) Theresa May was the Hicks and Gillette of leaders while Johnson is FSG.

Trump and Johnson/Brexit are two cheeks of the same populist arse.

The main difference between the two at the moment is Trump has had 4 more years to demonstrate how useless he is. My money is on things looking pretty similar here by 2024

...

Scott_xP said:

LadyG said:

Yes, that's what I think. Boris has now won enough campaigns for us to say he is very good at elections. The best since Blair.

AS a PM it is too soon to tell.

As noted upthread, his big relaunch this morning was a campaign speech.

It wasn't close to governing.

The jury is in...

Judge James O'Brien and you as the jury?!

Bit of a liberty! I guess this is going to be the case in a lot of tourist places for a while. Easyjet cancelled our mid July flights to Portugal this morning, two holidays down the drain now

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

It's also bollocks to say that the Remain campaign was "bad". They did everything you are expected to do: they did the powerful data stuff - how much this would cost us, the damage to trade, the Emergency Budget, the instant recession, the instant unemployment (ie they lied, like Leave).

On top of that they brought in all the big guns: from Obama to Brussels, the major newspapers, the CBI, almost every celebrity. They tugged at heart strings and did clever speeches. They did everything that was done in 1975 which led to a huge win for "JOIN THE EU" (even if it was technically "stay")

The Remain campaign was not bad at all. It was solid and well organised.

The problem is that the Leave campaign was unexpectedly superb. Very clever and very devious. There are two main reasons for this: they got Dom Cummings to mastermind it, and he really is good at this shit, and they got Boris Johnson to be the figurehead of the campaign, and he really is good at that shit.

There's a telling anecdote about the moment Cameron's team heard that Johnson had gone for Leave. They all fell into a terrible depressive hush, because they knew that meant they could lose.

Without Boris, Leave would have lost.

Ditto Farage. I understand why "liberal leavers" - being 8 people in total, most of whom post on here - would love to airbrush him out of history but it can't be done. Grits teeth - one of the most effective and influential British politicians of recent times.

LadyG said:

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.

Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.

Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.

I've read it. It is good. Dave should have listened to George.

May was a terrible PM, as said.

Boris is a bad leader in other ways.

His key problem is he is desperate to be liked. An admirable trait in a puppy; questionable in a leader. It can get him elected, but not help him when he's there. And he's instinctively lazy and thinks he can get away with a good one-liner instead of doing the detail.

He likes to think of himself as Churchillian. But Churchill could convey bad news and do it in such a way that he reached in through your ears to your balls and pulled them up.

No "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" from Boris. he;d have been more, "Crikey, I know it looks bad, but I'm sure we'll be okay, right? Just need to think positively!"

And instead of "Action This Day" on things like Integrated Air Defence, it would have been, "Well, I think we should believe in Britain rather than putting it down," with no actual useful instructions attached.

He's not consistent or sufficiently tough with his subordinates - Jenrick would have been gone the same day his dodginess was uncovered; Cummings would have gone (and Churchill wouldn't have had such a total dependency on any one person in the first place).

He needs to be able to give out bad news. He needs to be able to cover the detail. He needs to be consistent and firm. But nothing in his career has prepared him for this - he's been the class Clown for so long and got so much acceptance and popularity from that that he's become a mask he put on back at Eton.

For good times when all is going well, he'd be an okay leader. He's absolutely the wrong one for today.

Pulpstar said:

This probably helps Biden at the margins for November.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1277982703531499520

It matters two ways:

1. It's another candidate on the left of the Democratic Party who fails to win a Primary. This makes it harder for the Republicans to say they're all like AOC, etc

2. While Kentucky has not suddenly become competitive, Mitch is probably slightly more worried about re-election today than he was yesterday. Money that could have been spent on Trump nationally will now get spent on McConnell locally.

LadyG said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Alternatively, Remain wasn't pants, it was a standard issue campaign with some good moments and decent performers - like Ruth Davidson in the debates - it was just confronted with an unexpectedly brilliant opponent, who out-thought them

eg TAKE BACK CONTROL

That is electioneering genius. Very hard to refute or deny, without sounding mad or boring

Yes, that's probably fair. The Remain side weren't very nimble, though, they just worked through their grid (excluding the rather important bits which Corbyn and Seumas Milne sabotaged). In particular they fell straight into Cummings' trap on the £350m a week lie, trying to correct it to 'only' £250m a week and thereby giving it extra legs - not just once but repeatedly.

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

What is overlooked about the referendum, probably because Leave won, is that Remain had the backing of all three parties of government that decade, and lost. The public disagreed with the establishment on a massive issue, and without the referendum we would never have known. People on here would have been quoting opinion polls telling us we were wrong.

I sometimes wish Remain had narrowly won, as there would have been less chaos, and change would have come through the ballot box at the following GE. Also I reckon remainers would have respected the views of those they surprisingly only narrowly defeated more than those who defeated them. All the bitterness since flows from Remain losing authority at the ref, while leave would have seen a narrow defeat as an opportunity to win seats next GE a la SNP post Indy

Mr. Battery, I agree.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

Couldn't agree more. Leave's campaign was only brilliant in comparison to Remain.

Do you think if Leave had campaigned on immigration like Farage wanted instead of changing the battle onto extra money for the NHS etc that the Leave campaign would have been better or worse?

Farage and his immigration focus was a necessary but not sufficient condition of the Leave win.

Yes but it was there no matter what.

Farage would have been screaming about immigration no matter what. The likes of @isam here would have been voting for it no matter what.

Gove/Cummings/Johnson managed to get me and many other voters like me to switch from Remain to Leave. That wouldn't have happened with a focus on immigration.

isam said:

LadyG said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Alternatively, Remain wasn't pants, it was a standard issue campaign with some good moments and decent performers - like Ruth Davidson in the debates - it was just confronted with an unexpectedly brilliant opponent, who out-thought them

eg TAKE BACK CONTROL

That is electioneering genius. Very hard to refute or deny, without sounding mad or boring

Yes, that's probably fair. The Remain side weren't very nimble, though, they just worked through their grid (excluding the rather important bits which Corbyn and Seumas Milne sabotaged). In particular they fell straight into Cummings' trap on the £350m a week lie, trying to correct it to 'only' £250m a week and thereby giving it extra legs - not just once but repeatedly.

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

What is overlooked about the referendum, probably because Leave won, is that Remain had the backing of all three parties of government that decade, and lost. The public disagreed with the establishment on a massive issue, and without the referendum we would never have known. People on here would have been quoting opinion polls telling us we were wrong.

I sometimes wish Remain had narrowly won, as there would have been less chaos, and change would have come through the ballot box at the following GE. Also I reckon remainers would have respected the views of those they narrowly defeated more than those who defeated them

Of course Remain didn't have the backing of the Conservative Party.

Or the leadership of the Labour Party.

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.

Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.

The Conservative Party wasn't destroyed. He preserved the Conservative Party, though May nearly destroyed it.

Who could have thought that Cameron would have managed to lose a referendum, his successor would have become a laughing stock and we'd end the decade with a Tory majority of 80?

UK Regional Pillar 1 Case data.

As ever, the last 3-5 day of all data is subject to reporting issues and will be heavily updated later.
Last 5 days of data included for completeness
Mileage may vary. All wrongs reserved. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters.

Malmesbury said:

UK Regional Case data.

As ever, the last 3-5 day of all data is subject to reporting issues and will be heavily updated later.
Last 5 days of data included for completeness
Mileage may vary. All wrongs reserved. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters.

This remains fantastic work and super helpful. Thanks.

Re the Remain campaign.

It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"

It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.

That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.

Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.

The Conservative Party wasn't destroyed. He preserved the Conservative Party, though May nearly destroyed it.

Who could have thought that Cameron would have managed to lose a referendum, his successor would have become a laughing stock and we'd end the decade with a Tory majority of 80?

The party of Cameron, Hague, Thatcher, Macmillan hasn't survived. It has transformed into a mindless cult, having lost much of its top talent because they had the temerity to point out some uncomfortable truths. We are now watching the slow-motion car crash as it hits reality.

Here's the latest example. One of dozens each week, all slowly building up (see also the latest on the Dover customs checks):

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1277976726920814593

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.

Nope wrong again.

You wish it were not so. You wish "Leave" was lead by sophisticated scholars of sovereignty all debating the merits or otherwise of Droite de Suite or the much prized ability to reduce VAT on home energy bills. But the reality is that it was absolutely lead by Farage and his ilk with their racist posters and message on immigration.

An honest leaver would accept that and note that it was worth hitching their wagon to such people for the greater good of sovereignty.

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and facts. No wonder you voted Remain.

Leave was led by Vote Leave. Farage was explicitly excluded and even threatened law suits when his lot were not declared the official campaign.

You want it all to have been down to Farage because that suits your warped and quite deluded world view. You simply cannot accept that your side were beaten by a better campaign that did not rely upon xenophobia.

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

A quick skim around Wiki suggests that Peter Rickets had a fairly solid background in security matters but Darroch, Mark Grant and indeed even Sedwell all seem to have a diplomatic background. I appreciate that some prior experience is less likely to be highlighted than others but on the face of it Frost looks pretty similar.

Some pretty senior diplomatic background - UK representative at UN and Chair of Security Council, Permanent Rep in NATO, UK Rep in Brussels. And Sedwell was PS at the Home Office which will have had a very heavy security element. Frost's diplomatic pinnacle was Ambassador to Denmark.

Why don't you consider Chief Brexit Negotiator to be as serious as "UK Rep in Brussels"?

He's been in the job 5 months and so far its too soon to see if he'll be successful. Also not clear to what extent, if any, he's been making progress on the security aspects. He didn't get the job because of his Brexit negotiation role, he got it because of his personal connection to Johnson.

No he's not, he was appointed only just under 12 months ago. 24/7/19 is when he replaced Olly Robbins as chief Europe advisor and effective Brexit negotiator.

In that time he's successfully negotiated a revised deal to replace Theresa May's (something which was said to be impossible at the time) which has successfully been ratified by Parliament (something May catastrophically failed to do).

Prior representatives to Europe have become NSA chief, Frost is not only on a par with that he has comprehensively succeeded where May so comprehensively failed.

To see May criticise the man who succeeded in renegotiating her abysmal deal is utterly absurd. It would be one thing if diplomats had never held the role before but they have consistently done so and he is top of his class where that is concerned.

FF43 said:

kinabalu said:

Just back from Morrisons. Lady on the till coughing her guts up. Hmm.

And update on the £6.75 half bottle of scotch scenario. On the label it says "at least 3 years old" and then "manufactured in Scotland". And that's pretty much it.

Not keen on that "manufactured" word. It doesn't sound quite right for a drink.

That's the legal minimum. You can't sell Scotch whisky that isn't made and bottled in Scotland and aged for three years in barrel. If it doesn't say "single malt" or "blended malt" it will be a blended whisky, which is mostly a standard and tasteless grain whisky blended with a number of more expensive malt whiskies for flavour.

Right. Makes sense then. I am about to glug some. Let it take me away from this rather heavy feeling afternoon in North London.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.

Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.

The Conservative Party wasn't destroyed. He preserved the Conservative Party, though May nearly destroyed it.

Who could have thought that Cameron would have managed to lose a referendum, his successor would have become a laughing stock and we'd end the decade with a Tory majority of 80?

The party of Cameron, Hague, Thatcher, Macmillan hasn't survived. It has transformed into a mindless cult, having lost much of its top talent because they had the temerity to point out some uncomfortable truths. We are now watching the slow-motion car crash as it hits reality.

Here's the latest example. One of dozens each week, all slowly building up (see also the latest on the Dover customs checks):

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1277976726920814593

Johnson is more like Cameron than the authoritarian May ever was.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.

Nope wrong again.

You wish it were not so. You wish "Leave" was lead by sophisticated scholars of sovereignty all debating the merits or otherwise of Droite de Suite or the much prized ability to reduce VAT on home energy bills. But the reality is that it was absolutely lead by Farage and his ilk with their racist posters and message on immigration.

An honest leaver would accept that and note that it was worth hitching their wagon to such people for the greater good of sovereignty.

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and facts. No wonder you voted Remain.

Leave was led by Vote Leave. Farage was explicitly excluded and even threatened law suits when his lot were not declared the official campaign.

You want it all to have been down to Farage because that suits your warped and quite deluded world view. You simply cannot accept that your side were beaten by a better campaign that did not rely upon xenophobia.

LOL. Such a fine distinction: "Vote Leave"..."Leave EU"... @Philip_Thompson meanwhile just said "Leave" which is absolutely right to use. They were all the same.

If you had just one functioning brain cell (which I appreciate you don't) you would see what anyone with a pulse could: the "Leave" effort was lead by Farage.

You want to have aligned yourself with the cerebral Leavers (LOL) but you actually aligned yourself with the racists.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.

Nope wrong again.

You wish it were not so. You wish "Leave" was lead by sophisticated scholars of sovereignty all debating the merits or otherwise of Droite de Suite or the much prized ability to reduce VAT on home energy bills. But the reality is that it was absolutely lead by Farage and his ilk with their racist posters and message on immigration.

An honest leaver would accept that and note that it was worth hitching their wagon to such people for the greater good of sovereignty.

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and facts. No wonder you voted Remain.

Leave was led by Vote Leave. Farage was explicitly excluded and even threatened law suits when his lot were not declared the official campaign.

You want it all to have been down to Farage because that suits your warped and quite deluded world view. You simply cannot accept that your side were beaten by a better campaign that did not rely upon xenophobia.

LOL. Such a fine distinction: "Vote Leave"..."Leave EU"... @Philip_Thompson meanwhile just said "Leave" which is absolutely right to use. They were all the same.

If you had just one functioning brain cell (which I appreciate you don't) you would see what anyone with a pulse could: the "Leave" effort was lead by Farage.

You want to have aligned yourself with the cerebral Leavers (LOL) but you actually aligned yourself with the racists.

Vote Leave was the official Leave campaign and headlined the televised debates and outspent the other lot by about 10:1.

Yes Vote Leave led the Leave campaign. Farage was like a yapping bulldog trying to get attention on the side.

I listened to TM's outburst but to be honest I doubt it will feature much going forward. It is clear she dislikes Cummings, and no doubt Boris and David Frost, but if David Frost (and it is a big if) manages a deal with the EU the rest is chip paper

Boris was good today, but he is as many say of him (showman) and is running the Country as a CEO, while others get on with it. He is rattling an awful lot of people as evidenced on here, but will it matter in the end ?

He is there for 4 more years if he wants to be and has no need to consider polls.

The problem he will have is if his rhetoric falls short over the next 6 months and just how Brexit is or is not resolved

And before the usual posters come on and accuse me of being a 'Boris cheerleader' I would be far more comfortable if he were to stand down and pass on the baton, most likely into the new year and after our EU exit.

Cyclefree said:

BluestBlue said:

Remember how much of a 'problem' the condemnation of John Major and Tony Blair was before the election? They allowed Boris to contrast himself favourably against disliked figures from both the Tory and the Labour past, to great electoral effect.

No one but no one is pining to have May back.

Rather missing the point. This is not about May and her record. It is about a very valid question, namely, if expertise is so important, why is the country’s security - that is the security of every man, woman and child in the country - being put in the hands of someone with no experience or expertise in it?

Attacking the messenger is what people, regrettably quite a lot of them here, do when they have no answer to the message. Or, in this case, the question.

Because Frost is every bit as qualified as his predecessors. Prior representatives to the EU (which is effectively what Frost is) have held the role.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1277984629958553600

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1277984673025667072

Hello from Teesside. I saw the hungry the fed up and the desperate turn out in numbers I could hardly believe to the ballot box last December to vote for Shagger. And they are going to be brutally and callously left disappointed. Set aside that there never was a silver bullet to cure all ills, they aren't even going to see the gun to shoot the Bad Things they were promised.

Great MP they elected too. Matt Vickers ran a great social media campaign of "I went to school here, had my first pint here" etc vs the well spoken Dr Williams. And since the election he went to Thailand. Then isolation for ages. Then popped up volunteering at the hospital. And according to his register of interests declaration is working 20 hours a week as a Stockton Borough Councillor. 20 hours a week councilling plus shifts down the hospital means he does three parts of sweet fanny wotzit as an MP. But he won. Because Brexit.

@Malmesbury great analysis! So that map was a massive overreaction?

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.

Nope wrong again.

You wish it were not so. You wish "Leave" was lead by sophisticated scholars of sovereignty all debating the merits or otherwise of Droite de Suite or the much prized ability to reduce VAT on home energy bills. But the reality is that it was absolutely lead by Farage and his ilk with their racist posters and message on immigration.

An honest leaver would accept that and note that it was worth hitching their wagon to such people for the greater good of sovereignty.

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and facts. No wonder you voted Remain.

Leave was led by Vote Leave. Farage was explicitly excluded and even threatened law suits when his lot were not declared the official campaign.

You want it all to have been down to Farage because that suits your warped and quite deluded world view. You simply cannot accept that your side were beaten by a better campaign that did not rely upon xenophobia.

LOL. Such a fine distinction: "Vote Leave"..."Leave EU"... @Philip_Thompson meanwhile just said "Leave" which is absolutely right to use. They were all the same.

If you had just one functioning brain cell (which I appreciate you don't) you would see what anyone with a pulse could: the "Leave" effort was lead by Farage.

You want to have aligned yourself with the cerebral Leavers (LOL) but you actually aligned yourself with the racists.

Vote Leave was the official Leave campaign and headlined the televised debates and outspent the other lot by about 10:1.

Yes Vote Leave led the Leave campaign. Farage was like a yapping bulldog trying to get attention on the side.

As I said, if it makes you feel better to ignore what was transparently obvious then and now who am I to rub the truth in your face.

But to say that Farage was not front and centre of the Leave campaign is just mind-bogglingly idiotic. And of all things, you are not an idiot. Tyndall, yes, an idiot. You, no you are not.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.

A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.

People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.

It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.

I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.

Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.

It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.

Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.

Nope wrong again.

You wish it were not so. You wish "Leave" was lead by sophisticated scholars of sovereignty all debating the merits or otherwise of Droite de Suite or the much prized ability to reduce VAT on home energy bills. But the reality is that it was absolutely lead by Farage and his ilk with their racist posters and message on immigration.

An honest leaver would accept that and note that it was worth hitching their wagon to such people for the greater good of sovereignty.

You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and facts. No wonder you voted Remain.

Leave was led by Vote Leave. Farage was explicitly excluded and even threatened law suits when his lot were not declared the official campaign.

You want it all to have been down to Farage because that suits your warped and quite deluded world view. You simply cannot accept that your side were beaten by a better campaign that did not rely upon xenophobia.

LOL. Such a fine distinction: "Vote Leave"..."Leave EU"... @Philip_Thompson meanwhile just said "Leave" which is absolutely right to use. They were all the same.

If you had just one functioning brain cell (which I appreciate you don't) you would see what anyone with a pulse could: the "Leave" effort was lead by Farage.

You want to have aligned yourself with the cerebral Leavers (LOL) but you actually aligned yourself with the racists.

Vote Leave was the official Leave campaign and headlined the televised debates and outspent the other lot by about 10:1.

Yes Vote Leave led the Leave campaign. Farage was like a yapping bulldog trying to get attention on the side.

Well, if that's the case, Farage was getting a hell of a lot more bang for his buck than the official campaign was for their ten.

I'm very far from being a fan of the bloke, but if he was spending just a tenth as much as Cummings, it certainly didn't look like it as a member of the public.

The level of denial from Tyndall and Philip is extraordinary.

Just have the balls to say "we supported the racists in their aim because we wanted to achieve a greater good on sovereignty".

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I listened to TM's outburst but to be honest I doubt it will feature much going forward. It is clear she dislikes Cummings, and no doubt Boris and David Frost, but if David Frost (and it is a big if) manages a deal with the EU the rest is chip paper

Boris was good today, but he is as many say of him (showman) and is running the Country as a CEO, while others get on with it. He is rattling an awful lot of people as evidenced on here, but will it matter in the end ?

He is there for 4 more years if he wants to be and has no need to consider polls.

The problem he will have is if his rhetoric falls short over the next 6 months and just how Brexit is or is not resolved

And before the usual posters come on and accuse me of being a 'Boris cheerleader' I would be far more comfortable if he were to stand down and pass on the baton, most likely into the new year and after our EU exit.

Frost has already got a deal with the EU that could get through Parliament, something Theresa May and her appointments never achieved.

Diplomats have previously held this role. Frost seems every bit as experienced a diplomat as his predecessors, more experienced than some of them.

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.

Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.

The Conservative Party wasn't destroyed. He preserved the Conservative Party, though May nearly destroyed it.

Who could have thought that Cameron would have managed to lose a referendum, his successor would have become a laughing stock and we'd end the decade with a Tory majority of 80?

The party of Cameron, Hague, Thatcher, Macmillan hasn't survived. It has transformed into a mindless cult, having lost much of its top talent because they had the temerity to point out some uncomfortable truths. We are now watching the slow-motion car crash as it hits reality.

[...]

The Conservative Party is now in essence UKIP/Brexit Party minus Farage. All the things that you might think the Conservative Party stood for have gone: Preserving the Union; support for business; respect for institutions; what works instead of ideology; avoiding change for the sake of it; free trade.

No doubt Thatcher's critics said the same thing.

Sometimes things have to change. Especially when the public is voting for change.

That Johnson and Thatcher were both interested in achieving change and both got landslides seems an interesting point.

Malmesbury said:

Case data, Regional England, Pillar1, by specimen date.

Taken the last month, highlighted anything over 5.

Very interesting. We're using the same data. I've only looked at England as a whole, London and Leicester. Your chart clearly shows some other problem areas. It's not just Leicester.

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

Re the Remain campaign.

It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"

It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.

That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".

I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.

The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?

Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.

Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.

Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.

I agree. Remain lost because it led a negative campaign based on fear of leaving, rather than the joy of staying, in the EU. Nobody made a really good case of why the EU was a force for good; in fact, nobody really tried (and don't both replying that's because there's nothing good about the EU).

A year earlier, the same thing had happened in the Labour Party. Corbyn won the leadership primarily because Burnham, Cooper and Kendall ran safe, uninspiring and negative campaigns. They were all dreadful, and on that basis Corbyn deserved, tragically, to win.

Perhaps if Burnham or Cooper had won, the Labour Party would have done enough in 2016 to push remain over the line. Who knows?

isam said:

LadyG said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

Alternatively, Remain wasn't pants, it was a standard issue campaign with some good moments and decent performers - like Ruth Davidson in the debates - it was just confronted with an unexpectedly brilliant opponent, who out-thought them

eg TAKE BACK CONTROL

That is electioneering genius. Very hard to refute or deny, without sounding mad or boring

Yes, that's probably fair. The Remain side weren't very nimble, though, they just worked through their grid (excluding the rather important bits which Corbyn and Seumas Milne sabotaged). In particular they fell straight into Cummings' trap on the £350m a week lie, trying to correct it to 'only' £250m a week and thereby giving it extra legs - not just once but repeatedly.

Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.

The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.

What is overlooked about the referendum, probably because Leave won, is that Remain had the backing of all three parties of government that decade, and lost. The public disagreed with the establishment on a massive issue, and without the referendum we would never have known. People on here would have been quoting opinion polls telling us we were wrong.

I sometimes wish Remain had narrowly won, as there would have been less chaos, and change would have come through the ballot box at the following GE. Also I reckon remainers would have respected the views of those they surprisingly only narrowly defeated more than those who defeated them. All the bitterness since flows from Remain losing authority at the ref, while leave would have seen a narrow defeat as an opportunity to win seats next GE a la SNP post Indy

But Leave weren't a party - so I suppose you mean Farage and UKIP.

A point I make about the Ref which I sense you will agree with. Leave won 52/48 despite all main parties being Remain, business and the unions being Remain, most opinion formers in all fields being Remain, and the lower risk status quo (which attracts the agnostics and undecideds) being Remain.

So, yes, 52/48. But the mood of the country was far more Leave than that. 60/40 minimum. It was not truly close. In England it was a "mood" landslide. We were then - and we are now - Leave Nation.

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Case data, Regional England, Pillar1, by specimen date.

Taken the last month, highlighted anything over 5.

Very interesting. We're using the same data. I've only looked at England as a whole, London and Leicester. Your chart clearly shows some other problem areas. It's not just Leicester.

Doncaster not looking very good.

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

As I said, if it makes you feel better to ignore what was transparently obvious then and now who am I to rub the truth in your face.

But to say that Farage was not front and centre of the Leave campaign is just mind-bogglingly idiotic. And of all things, you are not an idiot. Tyndall, yes, an idiot. You, no you are not.

If we didn't have evidence from the horse's mouth about Farage's role, this attempt to rewrite history in order to validate prejudices might be more successful:

"Without Boris, Farage would have been a much more prominent face on TV during the crucial final weeks, probably the most prominent face. (We had to use Boris as leverage with the BBC to keep Farage off and even then they nearly screwed us as ITV did.) It is extremely plausible that this would have lost us over 600,000 vital middle class votes."

"Farage put off millions of (middle class in particular) voters who wanted to leave the EU but who were very clear in market research that a major obstacle to voting Leave was ‘I don’t want to vote for Farage, I’m not like that’. He also put off many prominent business people from supporting us. Over and over they would say ‘I agree with you the EU is a disaster and we should get out but I just cannot be on the same side as a guy who makes comments about people with HIV’."

"from the horse's mouth"??

LOL. The voting public are the horse's mouth. Not big bad Dom.

Dom Cummings in I don't want people to know I'm relying on a racist shock.

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Case data, Regional England, Pillar1, by specimen date.

Taken the last month, highlighted anything over 5.

Very interesting. We're using the same data. I've only looked at England as a whole, London and Leicester. Your chart clearly shows some other problem areas. It's not just Leicester.

It looks like just Leicester to me.

A week ago you might have said Bedford and a few others too and you may get some daily flare ups but the consistent trouble is Leicester.

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Case data, Regional England, Pillar1, by specimen date.

Taken the last month, highlighted anything over 5.

Very interesting. We're using the same data. I've only looked at England as a whole, London and Leicester. Your chart clearly shows some other problem areas. It's not just Leicester.

What do those numbers signify, deaths or infections?

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

Pulpstar said:

LadyG said:

Pulpstar said:

LadyG said:

It's far too early to judge Johnson. On the plus side, he's obviously better at elections than anyone since Blair. On the down side, he's obviously not good at managing pandemics.

1/2 of his opponents were the remain side that fought on (And with constant trickery) to try and stop Brexit way past what the average person thought was reasonable and the other half of the opposition was Jeremy Corbyn and his followers.

2019 was about as perfect a circumstance you could ever have for the Tories.

It is amazing how often Boris suddenly finds himself in the perfect circumstances: twice in London, once at a Ge...

Perhaps you could define the perfect circumstance which allowed him to win an apparently unwinnable referendum?

He's an excellent campaigner.
I rate Cummings very very highly too. Still should have gone mind.

The pandemic is a real test of governance and leadership, not campaigning though.

Yes, that's what I think. Boris has now won enough campaigns for us to say he is very good at elections. The best since Blair.

AS a PM it is too soon to tell. Especially as he faces probably the sternest tests, as a prime minister, since Winston Churchill: he has to steer us through a global pandemic, a great recession, and Brexit, in the next four years.

He has a great record against anti-semites. As might a donkey have.

Against normal opponents we have yet to see.

By that standard, Theresa May performed worse than a donkey...

Compared to the incumbent I would have Mrs May back in a heartbeat. Mrs May is to the Johnsonian right, what Blair was to the Corbynista left.

Floater said:

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Case data, Regional England, Pillar1, by specimen date.

Taken the last month, highlighted anything over 5.

Very interesting. We're using the same data. I've only looked at England as a whole, London and Leicester. Your chart clearly shows some other problem areas. It's not just Leicester.

What do those numbers signify, deaths or infections?

Pillar 1 *cases*