Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour: time to turn blue?

245

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Good piece. Instinctively, and of course I have no instinct from what drives Lab voters, wouldn't Blue Lab be in favour of Tony Blair?

    I think a lot of traditional working class Labour voters felt that Blair ignored their concerns in order to chase marginal voters down South. Labour's loss of working class support really accelerated under Blair.
    Plus of course there have always been working class Tories (eg Alf Garnet) so it's not as if Labour can, should, or has to get all working class people to vote for it.
    I see thanks. I suppose that is the eggs/omelette dilemma about getting yourself elected.

    Plus I thought that Maggie was the one that accumulated working class votes with all that aspiration stuff?
    I think that working class Tories loved Thatcher but in Labour voting areas (especially in Scotland and the North of England) she was generally loathed. She was quite a marmite politician!
    Yes I suppose I am aware that she was (still is, to her credit) loathed by all kinds and numbers of people.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited July 2020
    LadyG said:

    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    fpt for Alister


    "Georgia continues to baffle me

    The rise that had been forming in deaths has gone away and now continues to fall. Cases started rising on the 1st of June for this new super peak. Lagged deaths should be showing up by now.

    According to news reports they are having to ship patients out of state so totally saturated is the hospital system but no rising deaths."

    ****

    There's no need for bafflement. I posted a link a few days ago, from a Texas medical centre: in essence doctors have now learned how to treat Covid very successfully, to the extent that no one - apart from the seriously co-morbid - should ever die.

    As long as the ICU is not overwhelmed, a First World hospital should now see minimal deaths.

    What doctors can't do, yet, is stop people from catching Covid, and then getting chronically/seriously ill, hence the continued rise in cases/hospitalisations.

    There is no paradox.


    @LadyG that doesn't explain it. In Houston Texas deaths are tracking hospitalisations just as they were at the start of the epidemic. In fact, over the last month the hospitalisations death rate has increased - from 6.5% to 6.9% of hospital admissions dying.

    In Georgia you are seeing a absolutely plummeting Hospitalisation Death rate.
    Fair enough. That is confusing, and it does undermine the statement by that Texan doctor. Maybe his miracle cure doesn't cure quite so miraculously

    There is,. nonetheless, evidence that medics are getting much better at treating the most severe cases. They've learned to avoid ventilators, for instance. That must be a factor in "better" American death rates despite soaring case loads.

    Perhaps the Texan deaths are severely co-morbid people? Mayhap the virus has got into care homes? It would be interesting to see the age profile in Texas.
    Georgia Ventilator use was 881 a month ago. It is 1,092 now (out of 2,789 total).

    Nothing about Georgia makes sense (apart from they are seeing huge number of cases amongst the young)
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Many Russians are very, very well educated.

    I wonder if we will see more of them under Ms Patel's new fangled points system.

    A brain drain on top of his other woes would infuriate Putin.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Essexit said:

    Essexit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    I don't believe any ex-miners thought Johnson has their best interests at heart. What they did know was that Corbyn was not for them. They thought a clown better than a Marxist. A crap choice, but one that had to be made.
    Ironic then, that they should side with Mr Putin's Russian trolls.
    Indeed. Putin has been having lots of laughs at us over the last few years. It is a massive irony that so many people who voted for Leave believe themselves to be patriotic, when in reality they were advancing the foreign policy agenda of a hostile power.
    Another great way for Labour and the Lib Dems to avoid ever facing the responsibility of governing again is for them to keep obsessing with conspiracy theories about why plebs didn't do as they were told in 2016.
    Er, I have been a Conservative (a proper one) for most of my adult life, so I do not necessarily hold any view with respect to Labour or Lib Dems. However, you are, as the Donald might say WRONG: "The plebs" did do as they were told, only the bloke who was telling them what to do is an ex member of the KGB (and I am not referring to Mr Corbyn who I am sure has never had any dealings with that organisation).
    Complete lunacy but thank you for the insight.
    Sorry does it hurt? Are you one of Putin's Usefuls? I guess so. Well done mate, he must be grateful for your LACK of insight.

    Thatcher and Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. Putin is getting his revenge by having a moron in the Whitehouse, a clown in No10, damage to the EU and the likely breakup of the UK. You can reflect on the fact that you and a very gullible 52% of the population were gulled by his propaganda and have massively assisted his goals. The lunacy is with you, and you can own it as it plays out.
    No. Russia is a rather impotent powerless backwater, propped up by past glories and the oil price. They're trying to meddle in our affairs because they're not powerful enough to actually achieve anything on their own, hence their attempts to snoop on our scientists.
    Oh dear, you really don't understand the threat posed by a despot with a grievance do you? particularly one that has a very large (if outdated) military. Clearly no sense of history. I feel for you though, it must be difficult to accept that you have been duped by a foreign power, when you delude yourself about patriotism. People who desperately wanted to believe in appeasement must have felt the same
    Their very large and very outdated military are utterly inconsequential to the UK.

    Russia are the geopolitical equivalent of a 4chan troll in a basement trying to spread misinformation and hack websites.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    fpt for Alister


    "Georgia continues to baffle me

    The rise that had been forming in deaths has gone away and now continues to fall. Cases started rising on the 1st of June for this new super peak. Lagged deaths should be showing up by now.

    According to news reports they are having to ship patients out of state so totally saturated is the hospital system but no rising deaths."

    ****

    There's no need for bafflement. I posted a link a few days ago, from a Texas medical centre: in essence doctors have now learned how to treat Covid very successfully, to the extent that no one - apart from the seriously co-morbid - should ever die.

    As long as the ICU is not overwhelmed, a First World hospital should now see minimal deaths.

    What doctors can't do, yet, is stop people from catching Covid, and then getting chronically/seriously ill, hence the continued rise in cases/hospitalisations.

    There is no paradox.


    @LadyG that doesn't explain it. In Houston Texas deaths are tracking hospitalisations just as they were at the start of the epidemic. In fact, over the last month the hospitalisations death rate has increased - from 6.5% to 6.9% of hospital admissions dying.

    In Georgia you are seeing a absolutely plummeting Hospitalisation Death rate.
    My wife is an artist - as some of you may know - and she was part of the "portraits for frontline healthcare workers" project. One of the people she painted was a lady called Cindy, in Atlanta, who's a pulmonary care specialist in Georgia.

    She is incredibly concerned about the healthcare system becoming overwhelmed. As @LadyG says, while you have beds to treat everyone, you can keep the death rate low. Once you get beyond healthcare capacity, then lots of people will die.

    This NPR story also tells you how close Georgia is to running out of capacity.
    Currently at 84% ICU capacity used.

    https://gema.georgia.gov/emergencies-0/coronavirus

    Lots of data in PDF form.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    rcs1000 said:

    Tim_B said:

    Nigelb said:
    I just got back from a sally forth in the northern suburbs of Atlanta. In a restaurant, a drug store and a supermarket, I must have encountered upwards of 30-40 people. I counted 2 without masks.
    Fingers crossed the CV-19 moving average for Atlanta starts heading down again.
    Thanks - I always wear a mask and practice social distancing. Even have Purell in the car :smiley:
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 488

    I don't think "Blue Labour" is going to be relevant in the next few years.
    It came about at a time, early 2010s, when economic factors (jobs, inflation, interest rates, strikes, even crime) were not the problem they once were.
    So politics became about culture instead.
    But economic politics is going to come back, big time, post-COVID.

    Did you live in a different early 2010s than I did? The tail end of the biggest financial crash since the Great Depression? Inflation and deflation jockeying in turn for which we were most worried about? Unemployment doubling? A deficit crisis across Europe? Those early 2010s?
    Similarly, I find it difficult to understand the logic of someone who can look at the culture war that is currently raging and conclude that the whole thing is going to go away in the next couple of months. Not least because of the economic opportunities such a culture war offers:

    "Diversity job openings fell nearly 60% after the coronavirus. Then came the Black Lives Matter protests."

    "'Positive discrimination' pledge on jobs by Birmingham's new chief executive"

    "Lloyd’s of London and Greene King apologise over slavery links and pledge payments to Bame groups"

    "Achieving racial justice in the museum sector will involve current trustees and directors stepping down from their roles to make way for more diverse voices, BAME museum workforce representatives have suggested."
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Afternoon all :)

    First, thanks to @rottenborough for a thought provoking piece.

    I don't pretend to have insight into why so many Labour voters in the Midlands and the North deserted the Party last time. I'm sure there was a combination of factors most of which have been well aired.

    Starmer can't let history repeat itself but the lessons of both Wilson and Blair do resonate. He and Labour have to be the party for the future not the past and there has to be a recognition not everything that has happened has been malevolent.

    As an example, there is a legion of home workers evolving as working and living practices change. Who is speaking for these people - not the Conservatives who want to drag them kicking and screaming back to the office desk to rescue their friends in the commercial property sector.

    Labour wins when it addresses the core concerns of the population - it has to move on from the lost wars of yesterday (Brexit) and look hard at what it will mean to live in post-Covid post-EU Britain in the late 20s and beyond.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Essexit said:

    Essexit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    I don't believe any ex-miners thought Johnson has their best interests at heart. What they did know was that Corbyn was not for them. They thought a clown better than a Marxist. A crap choice, but one that had to be made.
    Ironic then, that they should side with Mr Putin's Russian trolls.
    Indeed. Putin has been having lots of laughs at us over the last few years. It is a massive irony that so many people who voted for Leave believe themselves to be patriotic, when in reality they were advancing the foreign policy agenda of a hostile power.
    Another great way for Labour and the Lib Dems to avoid ever facing the responsibility of governing again is for them to keep obsessing with conspiracy theories about why plebs didn't do as they were told in 2016.
    Er, I have been a Conservative (a proper one) for most of my adult life, so I do not necessarily hold any view with respect to Labour or Lib Dems. However, you are, as the Donald might say WRONG: "The plebs" did do as they were told, only the bloke who was telling them what to do is an ex member of the KGB (and I am not referring to Mr Corbyn who I am sure has never had any dealings with that organisation).
    Complete lunacy but thank you for the insight.
    Sorry does it hurt? Are you one of Putin's Usefuls? I guess so. Well done mate, he must be grateful for your LACK of insight.

    Thatcher and Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. Putin is getting his revenge by having a moron in the Whitehouse, a clown in No10, damage to the EU and the likely breakup of the UK. You can reflect on the fact that you and a very gullible 52% of the population were gulled by his propaganda and have massively assisted his goals. The lunacy is with you, and you can own it as it plays out.
    No. Russia is a rather impotent powerless backwater, propped up by past glories and the oil price. They're trying to meddle in our affairs because they're not powerful enough to actually achieve anything on their own, hence their attempts to snoop on our scientists.
    Oh dear, you really don't understand the threat posed by a despot with a grievance do you? particularly one that has a very large (if outdated) military. Clearly no sense of history. I feel for you though, it must be difficult to accept that you have been duped by a foreign power, when you delude yourself about patriotism. People who desperately wanted to believe in appeasement must have felt the same
    NATO without the USA could not stop Putin retaking the near homelands even if his military is outdated. The fact that the UK has now left the EU takes the backbone out of a possible EU military alliance should the USA decide to abandon Europe. One up to Putin.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    Keir Starmer's ability to get into No.10 may end up depending critically on his ability to persuade Middle England of the merits of having a minority Labour Government propped up by, and acting at the beck and call of, Scottish Nationalism.

    If Labour can't demonstrate that it has a good chance of reaching an overall Parliamentary majority on its own - and bear in mind at this juncture that it hasn't come anywhere close to this since Blair retired - then it has a serious problem.
    Yes, this specific issue was the undoing of Ed Miliband.

    If the polls are even looking close to a hung parliament, Starmer needs to make it explicitly clear that he will never work with nor rely on the SNP for support, even if it means no government can be formed and we move to a second election
    Yet that would probably kill off Labour in Scotland. And Unionism more generally, as it might regain some votes for SLAB from the SCUP.

    Why call yourself a Unionist and then deny the vast majority of Scottish MPs any role in ruling the UK?

    Not that Mr Starmer has much to lose at Westminster, apart from Mr Murray.
    The West Lothian Question stands to be the undoing of Starmer and all his successors, until Labour agrees to undo the damage caused by asymmetric devolution and establish a federal system with an English Parliament, or until Scotland becomes independent.

    They won't do the former so will have to hope for the latter.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Oh dear, that post is just so myopic and lacking in global understanding I am not sure I should respond, though I will try. I have neither feelings of inferiority or, as you clearly do, misplaced superiority, toward the Russian people or their country. Their military machine is clearly a shadow of its former self and its economy shaky, but it's propaganda machine is world class, though I imagine it doesn't need to be that sophisticated to real you in good and proper! I am sure Vlad would love to send you a Christmas card.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Oh dear, that post is just so myopic and lacking in global understanding I am not sure I should respond, though I will try. I have neither feelings of inferiority or, as you clearly do, misplaced superiority, toward the Russian people or their country. Their military machine is clearly a shadow of its former self and its economy shaky, but it's propaganda machine is world class, though I imagine it doesn't need to be that sophisticated to real you in good and proper! I am sure Vlad would love to send you a Christmas card.
    And his hand controls the gas supply to Western Europe
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    nichomar said:

    Essexit said:

    Essexit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    I don't believe any ex-miners thought Johnson has their best interests at heart. What they did know was that Corbyn was not for them. They thought a clown better than a Marxist. A crap choice, but one that had to be made.
    Ironic then, that they should side with Mr Putin's Russian trolls.
    Indeed. Putin has been having lots of laughs at us over the last few years. It is a massive irony that so many people who voted for Leave believe themselves to be patriotic, when in reality they were advancing the foreign policy agenda of a hostile power.
    Another great way for Labour and the Lib Dems to avoid ever facing the responsibility of governing again is for them to keep obsessing with conspiracy theories about why plebs didn't do as they were told in 2016.
    Er, I have been a Conservative (a proper one) for most of my adult life, so I do not necessarily hold any view with respect to Labour or Lib Dems. However, you are, as the Donald might say WRONG: "The plebs" did do as they were told, only the bloke who was telling them what to do is an ex member of the KGB (and I am not referring to Mr Corbyn who I am sure has never had any dealings with that organisation).
    Complete lunacy but thank you for the insight.
    Sorry does it hurt? Are you one of Putin's Usefuls? I guess so. Well done mate, he must be grateful for your LACK of insight.

    Thatcher and Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. Putin is getting his revenge by having a moron in the Whitehouse, a clown in No10, damage to the EU and the likely breakup of the UK. You can reflect on the fact that you and a very gullible 52% of the population were gulled by his propaganda and have massively assisted his goals. The lunacy is with you, and you can own it as it plays out.
    No. Russia is a rather impotent powerless backwater, propped up by past glories and the oil price. They're trying to meddle in our affairs because they're not powerful enough to actually achieve anything on their own, hence their attempts to snoop on our scientists.
    Oh dear, you really don't understand the threat posed by a despot with a grievance do you? particularly one that has a very large (if outdated) military. Clearly no sense of history. I feel for you though, it must be difficult to accept that you have been duped by a foreign power, when you delude yourself about patriotism. People who desperately wanted to believe in appeasement must have felt the same
    NATO without the USA could not stop Putin retaking the near homelands even if his military is outdated. The fact that the UK has now left the EU takes the backbone out of a possible EU military alliance should the USA decide to abandon Europe. One up to Putin.
    The UK's military power is the UK's military power not the EUs. There is not and never has been a meaningful "EU military alliance" and the military powers of Europe 5 years ago and the military powers of Europe today are exactly the same: the UK and France five years ago and the UK and France today. Not the EU.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    fpt for Alister


    "Georgia continues to baffle me

    The rise that had been forming in deaths has gone away and now continues to fall. Cases started rising on the 1st of June for this new super peak. Lagged deaths should be showing up by now.

    According to news reports they are having to ship patients out of state so totally saturated is the hospital system but no rising deaths."

    ****

    There's no need for bafflement. I posted a link a few days ago, from a Texas medical centre: in essence doctors have now learned how to treat Covid very successfully, to the extent that no one - apart from the seriously co-morbid - should ever die.

    As long as the ICU is not overwhelmed, a First World hospital should now see minimal deaths.

    What doctors can't do, yet, is stop people from catching Covid, and then getting chronically/seriously ill, hence the continued rise in cases/hospitalisations.

    There is no paradox.


    @LadyG that doesn't explain it. In Houston Texas deaths are tracking hospitalisations just as they were at the start of the epidemic. In fact, over the last month the hospitalisations death rate has increased - from 6.5% to 6.9% of hospital admissions dying.

    In Georgia you are seeing a absolutely plummeting Hospitalisation Death rate.
    My wife is an artist - as some of you may know - and she was part of the "portraits for frontline healthcare workers" project. One of the people she painted was a lady called Cindy, in Atlanta, who's a pulmonary care specialist in Georgia.

    She is incredibly concerned about the healthcare system becoming overwhelmed. As @LadyG says, while you have beds to treat everyone, you can keep the death rate low. Once you get beyond healthcare capacity, then lots of people will die.

    This NPR story also tells you how close Georgia is to running out of capacity.
    Currently at 84% ICU capacity used.

    https://gema.georgia.gov/emergencies-0/coronavirus

    Lots of data in PDF form.
    Cindy Powell of Emory by any chance?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    nichomar said:

    Essexit said:

    Essexit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    I don't believe any ex-miners thought Johnson has their best interests at heart. What they did know was that Corbyn was not for them. They thought a clown better than a Marxist. A crap choice, but one that had to be made.
    Ironic then, that they should side with Mr Putin's Russian trolls.
    Indeed. Putin has been having lots of laughs at us over the last few years. It is a massive irony that so many people who voted for Leave believe themselves to be patriotic, when in reality they were advancing the foreign policy agenda of a hostile power.
    Another great way for Labour and the Lib Dems to avoid ever facing the responsibility of governing again is for them to keep obsessing with conspiracy theories about why plebs didn't do as they were told in 2016.
    Er, I have been a Conservative (a proper one) for most of my adult life, so I do not necessarily hold any view with respect to Labour or Lib Dems. However, you are, as the Donald might say WRONG: "The plebs" did do as they were told, only the bloke who was telling them what to do is an ex member of the KGB (and I am not referring to Mr Corbyn who I am sure has never had any dealings with that organisation).
    Complete lunacy but thank you for the insight.
    Sorry does it hurt? Are you one of Putin's Usefuls? I guess so. Well done mate, he must be grateful for your LACK of insight.

    Thatcher and Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. Putin is getting his revenge by having a moron in the Whitehouse, a clown in No10, damage to the EU and the likely breakup of the UK. You can reflect on the fact that you and a very gullible 52% of the population were gulled by his propaganda and have massively assisted his goals. The lunacy is with you, and you can own it as it plays out.
    No. Russia is a rather impotent powerless backwater, propped up by past glories and the oil price. They're trying to meddle in our affairs because they're not powerful enough to actually achieve anything on their own, hence their attempts to snoop on our scientists.
    Oh dear, you really don't understand the threat posed by a despot with a grievance do you? particularly one that has a very large (if outdated) military. Clearly no sense of history. I feel for you though, it must be difficult to accept that you have been duped by a foreign power, when you delude yourself about patriotism. People who desperately wanted to believe in appeasement must have felt the same
    NATO without the USA could not stop Putin retaking the near homelands even if his military is outdated. The fact that the UK has now left the EU takes the backbone out of a possible EU military alliance should the USA decide to abandon Europe. One up to Putin.
    Indeed, I forgot to mention NATO. Trump has managed to undermine that organisation, so Putin has almost reached that objective also.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I am baffled as to why separating the UK from the European Union is beneficial to Russia.

    What holds Putin in check is not the EU, but NATO. There is no way an independent Britain is going to renege on its commitments there any more than a UK inside the EU would.

    There's a delusion some Europhiles like @Nigel_Foremain and @nichomar ansd @williamglenn share in that they long for some wished for EU superpower and wish the UK were a part of that superpower. Brexit marks the death of that dream which is why the are so angry and resentful and over the top ignorant.

    The reality those of us in the real world know is the EU is not, never was and likely never will be a "superpower" and the UK is a power (not a superpower) on its own right.

    The UK is a world power that is every bit as important as Russia.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784
    I don't think I'd be unique at all in having a meld of university left liberal and localist middling town, more socially conservative opinions. The broad principle of well regulated free markets to the extent necessary absolutely should encompass how we engage with globalism, how we engage with economic migration, and the extent to which we can and should regulate them. Milliband's brand of this was a little too tinkery and lacking in overall vision for me, although I did vote for him.

    And any vision for towns should not simply or even mainly be about addressing immigration or globalisation. It needs to answer what are those towns for, what is the offer for people that live there. For a country which is probably one of a dozen or so of the main hub economies of the world, we have done a really bad job of connecting with ourselves.

    I realise this is all a bit fluffy, that hard miles are needed to flesh out this out to anything more practical, and I don't have the answers here, just a start point.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    nichomar said:

    Who was going to Barcelona for a weekend

    Catalonia reports 1,111 new positives for COVID-19, of which 195 correspond to the Segrià region, 346 to the city of Barcelona and 67 to L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), according to data released this Friday by the Department of Health . 69.5% of the cases (772) are in the Barcelona Metropolitan Area, which covers the health regions of Barcelona, Metropolitana Norte and Metropoliana Sur

    Thankfully, my mum and I went to Barcelona for a week last October. Then in January we were thinking about going to Madrid or Lisbon for Easter, but luckily didn't book anything.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Oh dear, that post is just so myopic and lacking in global understanding I am not sure I should respond, though I will try. I have neither feelings of inferiority or, as you clearly do, misplaced superiority, toward the Russian people or their country. Their military machine is clearly a shadow of its former self and its economy shaky, but it's propaganda machine is world class, though I imagine it doesn't need to be that sophisticated to real you in good and proper! I am sure Vlad would love to send you a Christmas card.
    Their military machine is rusty - they can bully their weak near neighbours but they have no real global projection anymore.

    Their economics are atrocious.

    Their science capacity is awful.

    Their healthcare system is falling apart.

    They are inconsequential meddlers. You may see that as "world class propaganda" but I certainly do not. I pity you.
  • theoldpoliticstheoldpolitics Posts: 239
    edited July 2020
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    Good piece. Instinctively, and of course I have no instinct from what drives Lab voters, wouldn't Blue Lab be in favour of Tony Blair?

    I don't think so. To a quite astonishing extent Blair presented himself as lacking any sense of the resonance of the past, tradition, attachment to place, old fashioned culture, kitchen sink loyalties. How this is possible for an Anglican/Catholic family man with roots in Fettes, Oxford, the Bar and the Labour party In have no idea. It was his greatest weakness, leading directly to a complete misreading of the Middle East and other failures too.

    Blue Labour would surely have a greater grasp of the significance of the past and our inherited culture.
    Then what's the Blue all about?
    Blue like blue collar (and to some extent like The Blues), not blue like Conservative Blue.
    Ah I see!! Crystal clear thanks - I'm putting my lack of understanding down to pre-Friday-drinking dysphoria.
    In fairness it was a terrible branding choice, and I say that as someone who was in the seminar rooms mentioned in the OP.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Oh dear, that post is just so myopic and lacking in global understanding I am not sure I should respond, though I will try. I have neither feelings of inferiority or, as you clearly do, misplaced superiority, toward the Russian people or their country. Their military machine is clearly a shadow of its former self and its economy shaky, but it's propaganda machine is world class, though I imagine it doesn't need to be that sophisticated to real you in good and proper! I am sure Vlad would love to send you a Christmas card.
    Their military machine is rusty - they can bully their weak near neighbours but they have no real global projection anymore.

    Their economics are atrocious.

    Their science capacity is awful.

    Their healthcare system is falling apart.

    They are inconsequential meddlers. You may see that as "world class propaganda" but I certainly do not. I pity you.
    Centrists like Nigel have to believe that Russia has a world class propaganda machine because otherwise they'd have to take responsibility for the failings of their ideology (Brexit, Trump, Johnson, etc.)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    Scott_xP said:
    Johnson is the one who has to make the important decisions.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    I am baffled as to why separating the UK from the European Union is beneficial to Russia.

    What holds Putin in check is not the EU, but NATO. There is no way an independent Britain is going to renege on its commitments there any more than a UK inside the EU would.

    It was much simpler when the Red Army was two hours drive from the Rhine and we had 72 hours to either hold the Warsaw Pact, surrender or release armageddon. Most of Western Europe could sign up to that even countries that weren't in the EEC like Britain (pre 1973), Norway and Denmark let alone those which weren't democracies at all like Spain and Greece.

    With the "retreat" of Russian influence after 1989, it's harder. We don't see Russia as the threat we saw the USSR but ultimately the question hasn't changed. Would I, in my last moments, draw any satisfaction from knowing my incineration would shortly be followed by that of the citizens of Kharkov or Irkutsk?

    It's not worth the risk - it has never been worth the risk. 1989 was in many ways a miracle, one of those moments in history when an opportunity truly existed to change things. We didn't take that opportunity in my view so the old "Cold War" rhetoric remains.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    He was the future once.

    Well, whatever being touted as a possible leader of the SCons counts as.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    I am baffled as to why separating the UK from the European Union is beneficial to Russia.

    What holds Putin in check is not the EU, but NATO. There is no way an independent Britain is going to renege on its commitments there any more than a UK inside the EU would.

    There's a delusion some Europhiles like @Nigel_Foremain and @nichomar ansd @williamglenn share in that they long for some wished for EU superpower and wish the UK were a part of that superpower. Brexit marks the death of that dream which is why the are so angry and resentful and over the top ignorant.

    The reality those of us in the real world know is the EU is not, never was and likely never will be a "superpower" and the UK is a power (not a superpower) on its own right.

    The UK is a world power that is every bit as important as Russia.
    That post is really up there. For the record I was always a Euroscptic Tory, but not one that was dumb enough to believe Brexit was a good idea, so I am not a "Europhile" if that silly phrase is meant to mean I love the institution of the EU, any more than I love the institution of the UN or the WHO. The EU is NOT a superpower, Mr Big Brain, because it is not, and never will be sovereign. I know you Brexit believers have a problem understanding the complexity of the principle of sovereignty, but that is a fact.

    The reality that you do not want to address is that you, and the useful idiots that used to vote UKIP and now control the Conservative Party, have done the bidding of Vladimir Putin, who wishes to see the demise of the West. You are the appeasers of the 21st Century. Anyway, it is time to bid you au revoir , if that expression is not too "Europhile" for you.
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    HYUFD said:

    At the last general election Labour got just 32% with C2 working class voters and they are now the Tories base, 47% of them voted Tory, voters who are socially conservative and pro hard Brexit are not going to vote for Starmer Labour.

    It should focus on poor DE voters with whom Labour got 39% and who are the most economically left still and also could make inroads with pro Remain ABs and C1s with whom the Tories got a lower voteshare than C2s

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    Yes, main focus should be focusing on those voters (who maybe voted Lab in 2017 but abstained in 2019) in the more urban seats they lost such as Blackpool South, Darlington, Wakefield, West Bromwich East, Birmingham Northfield etc in addition to squeezing LDs and possibly getting soft Tory remainers/liberal leavers in the right places.

    I think Labour is doing enough to regain those sorts of voters on the culture front by merely respecting the referendum result/avoiding culture war stuff like in 2017 but still needs a more credible economic offer.

    Overall I think this article is daft concern trolling though as it's mainly opportunist journalists stoking this culture war stuff to cause trouble. Ignores the fact that Miliband tried dabbling in this stuff and didn't work as well and came off as inauthentic.
    rcs1000 said:

    Essexit said:

    OT: Barring an SNP collapse, Labour won't win again without significant recovery in the Red Wall, so a bit of 'blue' is what they need. I can't see Keir Starmer wanting to do that though, or - more to the point - being able to do so convincingly if he wanted.

    And thanks for a good thread header Rotten.

    That's probably, but not necessarily true.

    It's possible we see - as has happened in the US - that Labour becomes not just the party of the city centres, but of the suburbs too (v. bad news for the LDs, if true, of course).

    In that scenario, it's not Northern, formerly-industrial, towns that go from Blue to Red, but places like Hazel Grove.
    I think the Lib Dems are well enough established in Hazel Grove to remain the main opposition even though it's a less likely gain for them than Cheadle at the next election.

    Macclesfield is quite interesting though for Labour medium term as they gained hugely in 2017 and their vote largely held up in 2019 although they're still just over 10K behind the Tories but still in a similar position to 97/01.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    Good piece. Instinctively, and of course I have no instinct from what drives Lab voters, wouldn't Blue Lab be in favour of Tony Blair?

    I don't think so. To a quite astonishing extent Blair presented himself as lacking any sense of the resonance of the past, tradition, attachment to place, old fashioned culture, kitchen sink loyalties. How this is possible for an Anglican/Catholic family man with roots in Fettes, Oxford, the Bar and the Labour party In have no idea. It was his greatest weakness, leading directly to a complete misreading of the Middle East and other failures too.

    Blue Labour would surely have a greater grasp of the significance of the past and our inherited culture.
    Then what's the Blue all about?
    Blue like blue collar (and to some extent like The Blues), not blue like Conservative Blue.
    Ah I see!! Crystal clear thanks - I'm putting my lack of understanding down to pre-Friday-drinking dysphoria.
    In fairness it was a terrible branding choice, and I say that as someone who was in the seminar rooms mentioned in the OP.
    :smile:
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I am baffled as to why separating the UK from the European Union is beneficial to Russia.

    What holds Putin in check is not the EU, but NATO. There is no way an independent Britain is going to renege on its commitments there any more than a UK inside the EU would.

    There's a delusion some Europhiles like @Nigel_Foremain and @nichomar ansd @williamglenn share in that they long for some wished for EU superpower and wish the UK were a part of that superpower. Brexit marks the death of that dream which is why the are so angry and resentful and over the top ignorant.

    The reality those of us in the real world know is the EU is not, never was and likely never will be a "superpower" and the UK is a power (not a superpower) on its own right.

    The UK is a world power that is every bit as important as Russia.
    That post is really up there. For the record I was always a Euroscptic Tory, but not one that was dumb enough to believe Brexit was a good idea, so I am not a "Europhile" if that silly phrase is meant to mean I love the institution of the EU, any more than I love the institution of the UN or the WHO. The EU is NOT a superpower, Mr Big Brain, because it is not, and never will be sovereign. I know you Brexit believers have a problem understanding the complexity of the principle of sovereignty, but that is a fact.

    The reality that you do not want to address is that you, and the useful idiots that used to vote UKIP and now control the Conservative Party, have done the bidding of Vladimir Putin, who wishes to see the demise of the West. You are the appeasers of the 21st Century. Anyway, it is time to bid you au revoir , if that expression is not too "Europhile" for you.
    The reality is I don't care about "the bidding of Vladimir Putin" because Putin is an inconsequential minor troll half the world away that has not much to do with us. To say we're doing the bidding of Putin is like suggesting that Mourinho's transfers are doing the bidding of Nottingham Forest.

    You keep banging on about Putin without actually answering the question as to why we should care what a bankrupt impotent Russian state cares about. You keep comparing it to appeasement but the difference is the Nazis were powerful and a threat . . . Russia is not.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, thanks to @rottenborough for a thought provoking piece.

    I don't pretend to have insight into why so many Labour voters in the Midlands and the North deserted the Party last time. I'm sure there was a combination of factors most of which have been well aired.

    Starmer can't let history repeat itself but the lessons of both Wilson and Blair do resonate. He and Labour have to be the party for the future not the past and there has to be a recognition not everything that has happened has been malevolent.

    As an example, there is a legion of home workers evolving as working and living practices change. Who is speaking for these people - not the Conservatives who want to drag them kicking and screaming back to the office desk to rescue their friends in the commercial property sector.

    Labour wins when it addresses the core concerns of the population - it has to move on from the lost wars of yesterday (Brexit) and look hard at what it will mean to live in post-Covid post-EU Britain in the late 20s and beyond.

    Thanks Stodge. Interesting points. I was too young to really remember but Wilson presented himself as far more modern than the tired, old, aristocrat bound Tories I seem to recall.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    edited July 2020

    He was the future once.

    Well, whatever being touted as a possible leader of the SCons counts as.
    OH yes, the former leftie republican who coauthored How we should rule ourselves with Alasdair Gray:

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15284720.from-left-wing-republican-to-ruth-davidsons-brain-meet-tory-msp-adam-tomkins/
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Johnson is the one who has to make the important decisions.
    It's quite obvious he is desperate to end social distancing and then exhort us all back to the daily commute.

    Pending a vaccine, which presumably will need to be taken annually and which, while it may well work fine for covid-19 may not be effective against some mutated variation, there's an inescapable logic about trying to reduce transmission so large numbers of people in confined cases doesn't look a good idea.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    nichomar said:

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Oh dear, that post is just so myopic and lacking in global understanding I am not sure I should respond, though I will try. I have neither feelings of inferiority or, as you clearly do, misplaced superiority, toward the Russian people or their country. Their military machine is clearly a shadow of its former self and its economy shaky, but it's propaganda machine is world class, though I imagine it doesn't need to be that sophisticated to real you in good and proper! I am sure Vlad would love to send you a Christmas card.
    And his hand controls the gas supply to Western Europe
    And this government has ensured we are switching our energy away from gas and to domestically controlled production like wind etc taking away the only way he used to matter.

    As the world moves rapidly away from gas Russia is becoming third world meddlers not a developed threat.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Russia is no superpower but it's deeply arguable that we are a bigger global player than they are. Good to see the "Russians" from you, though, rather than the "Russkies". People mature before your very eyes on here.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,883

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    This is KEY question I want answered.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2020
    kinabalu said:

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Russia is no superpower but it's deeply arguable that we are a bigger global player than they are. Good to see the "Russians" from you, though, rather than the "Russkies". People mature before your very eyes on here.
    Of course we are a bigger global player than they are. Economically, scientifically and in any other way that actually matters we are far more significant than the Russians.

    When the world's greatest threat at the minute is COVID19 and the world is in desperate need for a vaccine it is no coincidence that our scientists are at the forefront of finding a vaccine to rid the world of this plague . . . while the Russians are doing nothing more than trying to hack and find our data. We are moving the world, they're trying to ride our coat tails.

    PS No maturing, I I have never in my life written "Russkies", the Russians don't deserve an affectionate nickname.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very good header, thank you. Personally I hope Labour do not go that way. I wouldn't like it. I'd probably resign my membership. But then again, I would still vote for them and so if I'm typical of the new woke metro base, and going "blue" would win back the oiks, perhaps this means it does make sense for the party in electoral terms.

    I think we can agree that this is a misstep from you. Calling them oiks. Nothing serious and god knows enough Lab types are thinking it but probably best not to display it on a website forum.
    Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But what I can promise is that as soon as they vote Labour again they will move from "oik" to "decent ordinary working people". Surely an incentive for them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    F1: pair of confirmed cases:
    ttps://twitter.com/autosport/status/1284146698181378049

    Ooh. Will be interesting to see the impact of this. They’ve done more than 10,000 tests so far, on more than 2,000 individuals associated with the events.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    edited July 2020
    Last time we discussed THE RUSSIANS nobody could come up with a reason as to why Putin particularly wanted to colonise Western Europe. Russia attempts to dominate its near neighbours as a buffer to Western incursions, usually lead by a 'strong man' or woman. It was like that in the time of Peter, in the time of Catherine, in the time of Nicholas, in the time of Stalin, in the time of Gorbachev etc. It has only been *not* like that under Lenin, when it tried to provoke a worldwide revolution of the proletariat, and under Yeltsin, where the leader was weak enough to be far more amenable to US aims. Those were relatively brief moments.

    So far as I can see, the shit has really hit the fan over Russia when it started stopping the US doing what it wanted in Ukraine and Syria. I don't really care about Ukraine (I don't see either the old pro-Russian leadership or the new pro-US one as being particularly enticing specimens), and I actively oppose what America wants to do in Syria, replacing an Arab nationalist who guarantees some freedoms, with an Islamist hellhole.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    stodge said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Johnson is the one who has to make the important decisions.
    It's quite obvious he is desperate to end social distancing and then exhort us all back to the daily commute.

    Pending a vaccine, which presumably will need to be taken annually and which, while it may well work fine for covid-19 may not be effective against some mutated variation, there's an inescapable logic about trying to reduce transmission so large numbers of people in confined cases doesn't look a good idea.
    I know it's pedanitic, but no vaccine will work against Covid-19. The search is on for a vaccine against SARS-COV-2, commonly known as the Corona Virus.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    edited July 2020

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    edited July 2020

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, thanks to @rottenborough for a thought provoking piece.

    I don't pretend to have insight into why so many Labour voters in the Midlands and the North deserted the Party last time. I'm sure there was a combination of factors most of which have been well aired.

    Starmer can't let history repeat itself but the lessons of both Wilson and Blair do resonate. He and Labour have to be the party for the future not the past and there has to be a recognition not everything that has happened has been malevolent.

    As an example, there is a legion of home workers evolving as working and living practices change. Who is speaking for these people - not the Conservatives who want to drag them kicking and screaming back to the office desk to rescue their friends in the commercial property sector.

    Labour wins when it addresses the core concerns of the population - it has to move on from the lost wars of yesterday (Brexit) and look hard at what it will mean to live in post-Covid post-EU Britain in the late 20s and beyond.

    Thanks Stodge. Interesting points. I was too young to really remember but Wilson presented himself as far more modern than the tired, old, aristocrat bound Tories I seem to recall.

    I have 2 reasons that seemed to dominate

    1 - Corbyn
    2 - Brexit (would be interested to know what happened to LD vote in the Red Wall seats given the funda-remainer LD positioning).

    One interesting question is whether Pavement Politics will work for Red Wall Tory MPs, and how resilient will such be to whatever happens nationally.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,883
    eristdoof said:

    stodge said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Johnson is the one who has to make the important decisions.
    It's quite obvious he is desperate to end social distancing and then exhort us all back to the daily commute.

    Pending a vaccine, which presumably will need to be taken annually and which, while it may well work fine for covid-19 may not be effective against some mutated variation, there's an inescapable logic about trying to reduce transmission so large numbers of people in confined cases doesn't look a good idea.
    I know it's pedanitic, but no vaccine will work against Covid-19. The search is on for a vaccine against SARS-COV-2, commonly known as the Corona Virus.
    Known to all as Covid-19 So why be pedantic?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very good header, thank you. Personally I hope Labour do not go that way. I wouldn't like it. I'd probably resign my membership. But then again, I would still vote for them and so if I'm typical of the new woke metro base, and going "blue" would win back the oiks, perhaps this means it does make sense for the party in electoral terms.

    I think we can agree that this is a misstep from you. Calling them oiks. Nothing serious and god knows enough Lab types are thinking it but probably best not to display it on a website forum.
    Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But what I can promise is that as soon as they vote Labour again they will move from "oik" to "decent ordinary working people". Surely an incentive for them.
    They need something to look forward to.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eristdoof said:

    stodge said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Johnson is the one who has to make the important decisions.
    It's quite obvious he is desperate to end social distancing and then exhort us all back to the daily commute.

    Pending a vaccine, which presumably will need to be taken annually and which, while it may well work fine for covid-19 may not be effective against some mutated variation, there's an inescapable logic about trying to reduce transmission so large numbers of people in confined cases doesn't look a good idea.
    I know it's pedanitic, but no vaccine will work against Covid-19. The search is on for a vaccine against SARS-COV-2, commonly known as the Corona Virus.
    To be pedantic you are wrong.

    The search is on for a vaccine against SARS-COV-2, a strand of coronavirus commonly known as Covid-19.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,883
    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,151
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    Keir Starmer's ability to get into No.10 may end up depending critically on his ability to persuade Middle England of the merits of having a minority Labour Government propped up by, and acting at the beck and call of, Scottish Nationalism.

    If Labour can't demonstrate that it has a good chance of reaching an overall Parliamentary majority on its own - and bear in mind at this juncture that it hasn't come anywhere close to this since Blair retired - then it has a serious problem.
    Yes, this specific issue was the undoing of Ed Miliband.

    If the polls are even looking close to a hung parliament, Starmer needs to make it explicitly clear that he will never work with nor rely on the SNP for support, even if it means no government can be formed and we move to a second election
    Yet that would probably kill off Labour in Scotland. And Unionism more generally, as it might regain some votes for SLAB from the SCUP.

    Why call yourself a Unionist and then deny the vast majority of Scottish MPs any role in ruling the UK?

    Not that Mr Starmer has much to lose at Westminster, apart from Mr Murray.
    They wouldn't be being denied because they are Scottish, though, but because their political beliefs (breakup of the UK) are incompatible with Labour's (a socialist/social democratically governed UK). If Labour win the next election, but have no MPs in Cornwall and refuse to do a deal with the party which won all 6 Cornish MPs (i.e. the Conservative Party), does that make them anti-Cornish?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I'd damn well hope so given what we know about how covid-19 can damage the heart system.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited July 2020

    eristdoof said:

    stodge said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Johnson is the one who has to make the important decisions.
    It's quite obvious he is desperate to end social distancing and then exhort us all back to the daily commute.

    Pending a vaccine, which presumably will need to be taken annually and which, while it may well work fine for covid-19 may not be effective against some mutated variation, there's an inescapable logic about trying to reduce transmission so large numbers of people in confined cases doesn't look a good idea.
    I know it's pedanitic, but no vaccine will work against Covid-19. The search is on for a vaccine against SARS-COV-2, commonly known as the Corona Virus.
    To be pedantic you are wrong.

    The search is on for a vaccine against SARS-COV-2, a strand of coronavirus commonly known as Covid-19.
    I thought that SARS-COV-2 is the name of the virus and COVID-19 is the name of the disease it causes. Like how smallpox was the disease caused by the variola virus.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Good piece. Instinctively, and of course I have no instinct from what drives Lab voters, wouldn't Blue Lab be in favour of Tony Blair?

    I think a lot of traditional working class Labour voters felt that Blair ignored their concerns in order to chase marginal voters down South. Labour's loss of working class support really accelerated under Blair.
    Plus of course there have always been working class Tories (eg Alf Garnet) so it's not as if Labour can, should, or has to get all working class people to vote for it.
    Not really, even in 2005 Labour won 40% of C2s and 48% of DEs.

    By 2019 though Labour won only 32% of C2s and 39% of DEs.

    Labour's AB voteshare was virtually the same under Corbyn and Blair, 30% in 2019 and 28% in 2005, in fact Corbyn did better with the upper middle class than Blair in 2005 but far worse with the working class. C1s were the same under Blair in 2005 and Corbyn in 2019 too, 32% each


    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2005

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
    Yes but Labour support among C2s and DEs declined by 10-11pp between 97-05 while their support among ABs went down just 3pp. I think a lot of working class people especially in traditional Labour-voting ex industrial areas had high hopes of a Labour government after the disasters of Thatcherism, and were disappointed that Labour didn't do more for them.
    I'm watching the Murdoch series atm. Episode 1 majored on his close relationship with New Labour - and boy was it close. It does make you question the strength of Tony's commitment to prioritize the interests of the working class at the expense of capitalist elites. Still, he won elections and as time passes this notion is assuming for me the intense attraction of the unattainable love object.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very good header, thank you. Personally I hope Labour do not go that way. I wouldn't like it. I'd probably resign my membership. But then again, I would still vote for them and so if I'm typical of the new woke metro base, and going "blue" would win back the oiks, perhaps this means it does make sense for the party in electoral terms.

    I think we can agree that this is a misstep from you. Calling them oiks. Nothing serious and god knows enough Lab types are thinking it but probably best not to display it on a website forum.
    Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But what I can promise is that as soon as they vote Labour again they will move from "oik" to "decent ordinary working people". Surely an incentive for them.
    They need something to look forward to.
    Yes! Finger on IT.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    Excess deaths is the only number worth looking at.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    edited July 2020

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    It's back dating. Sigh.

    image

    compare with yesterday....

    image
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nice piece (but as noted below, some text appears twice). It's a tough one. But if the Tories can persuade ex miners that Boris Johnson has their best interests at heart then it shouldn't be impossible for Labour to find a way to assemble an election-winning coalition.

    Keir Starmer's ability to get into No.10 may end up depending critically on his ability to persuade Middle England of the merits of having a minority Labour Government propped up by, and acting at the beck and call of, Scottish Nationalism.

    If Labour can't demonstrate that it has a good chance of reaching an overall Parliamentary majority on its own - and bear in mind at this juncture that it hasn't come anywhere close to this since Blair retired - then it has a serious problem.
    Yes, this specific issue was the undoing of Ed Miliband.

    If the polls are even looking close to a hung parliament, Starmer needs to make it explicitly clear that he will never work with nor rely on the SNP for support, even if it means no government can be formed and we move to a second election
    Yet that would probably kill off Labour in Scotland. And Unionism more generally, as it might regain some votes for SLAB from the SCUP.

    Why call yourself a Unionist and then deny the vast majority of Scottish MPs any role in ruling the UK?

    Not that Mr Starmer has much to lose at Westminster, apart from Mr Murray.
    They wouldn't be being denied because they are Scottish, though, but because their political beliefs (breakup of the UK) are incompatible with Labour's (a socialist/social democratically governed UK). If Labour win the next election, but have no MPs in Cornwall and refuse to do a deal with the party which won all 6 Cornish MPs (i.e. the Conservative Party), does that make them anti-Cornish?
    No, because the Tories have plenty of non-Cornish MPs.

    And in this case the real reason for Labour not cooperating with the SNP is electoral - the attitudes of Middle England. A point made well earlier in the thread. And one which everyone will know.

    The implication is that Labour would rather have a Tory UK than a socialist rUK.

    That was what they, effectively, said in the 2014 referendum (if one swaps 'Socialist Scotland' for 'Socialist UK', and they have not recovered in Scotland post-2014.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    The statistics can't be trusted. Lord only knows how many of the remaining 98 are old cases from March or April that the authorities have only just got around to reporting, how many of them had Covid but recovered and died later of something completely different, how many were infected with Covid when they were dying but were carried off by something else, and how many both explicitly died of Covid and did so within the last few days.

    If most of them really have both died of Covid and have only just perished, then one would feel inclined to point the finger of suspicion at the care homes - in which case, the bizarre ratio of hospital to non-hospital cases might then be explicable, if the bulk of the people still dying of Covid are very elderly and frail, and there's deemed to be no point in moving them to hospital and making aggressive interventions in an effort to save them. But absent a detailed breakdown of the numbers, who can say?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    So our Government really could have done a fantastic job after all. It's a theory I suppose, but how do we explain excess deaths?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,883

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    It's back dating. Sigh.

    image

    compare with yesterday....

    image
    Except still not saying where? And who? If it is care home deaths why not tell us?
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,703
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    Excess deaths is the only number worth looking at.
    And the overall life expectancy figure.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very good header, thank you. Personally I hope Labour do not go that way. I wouldn't like it. I'd probably resign my membership. But then again, I would still vote for them and so if I'm typical of the new woke metro base, and going "blue" would win back the oiks, perhaps this means it does make sense for the party in electoral terms.

    I think we can agree that this is a misstep from you. Calling them oiks. Nothing serious and god knows enough Lab types are thinking it but probably best not to display it on a website forum.
    Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But what I can promise is that as soon as they vote Labour again they will move from "oik" to "decent ordinary working people". Surely an incentive for them.
    They need something to look forward to.
    Yes! Finger on IT.
    It feels good chatting like this to you. What with your talk of oiks and you being condescending towards them it's like talking to a proper Tory!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    A former Icelandic prime minister writes about the impact of social media.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/17/social-media-the-state-of-things-to-come/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    So our Government really could have done a fantastic job after all. It's a theory I suppose, but how do we explain excess deaths?
    I'm talking about the present situation.

    There are no excess deaths at the minute to explain. The last excess deaths were (from memory) recorded over a month ago now. We have negative excess now and have for weeks.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    Excess deaths is the only number worth looking at.
    Indeed and there haven't been any for a while now.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,242
    Tim_B said:

    Nigelb said:
    I just got back from a sally forth in the northern suburbs of Atlanta. In a restaurant, a drug store and a supermarket, I must have encountered upwards of 30-40 people. I counted 2 without masks.
    Partisanship no doubt a factor but so is "where you live" as many if not most of the places on map with low masking rates are rural areas without serious outbreaks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    LadyG said:

    Happening.

    5m locked down, again, in Barcelona

    https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1284125955414343687?s=20

    Is any of that surprising? I thought start, stop, start localised lockdowns was the expected outcomes.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    This paragraph in the national newspaper of record doesn't make good reading for Hancock.

    "Matt Hancock has called for an urgent review into England’s coronavirus death toll, having only just realised that anyone who has ever tested positive counts in Covid statistics, regardless of the cause of their death." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/matt-hancock-orders-urgent-review-into-daily-covid-19-death-figures-in-england-3nhdlqhcj
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited July 2020
    Large numbers of you lot need to take off the tinfoil hats, there's no grand conspiracy with the statistics; not every case is as simple as someone obviously having covid, testing positive and then succumbing.
    Death certificates take time and the breakdowns are available eventually for different settings, which means statistics are always, always backdated. @Malmesbury does an excellent job with his graphs and so forth, but death reporting particularly out of non hospital settings (Care homes and homes) tend to be slow and always backdated.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Justice Ginsberg announces she is undergoing chemo for cancer recurrence and is responding well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    It's back dating. Sigh.

    Yes, we'd all like to be.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    edited July 2020
    Back dating in the England all settings numbers -

    The changes go back to March. most in the last month, though.

    image
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,883
    Pulpstar said:

    Large numbers of you lot need to take off the tinfoil hats, there's no grand conspiracy with the statistics; not every case is as simple as someone obviously having covid, testing positive and then succumbing.
    Death certificates take time and the breakdowns are available eventually for different settings, which means statistics are always, always backdated. @Malmesbury does an excellent job with his graphs and so forth, but death reporting particularly out of non hospital settings (Care homes and homes) tend to be slow and always backdated.

    I’m the last person to wear a tin foil hat. I work as a scientist at uni. If it just back dating, the issue of where is still relevant. The public perception is of deaths from COVID as hospital events. The numbers coming out for all settings don’t match that. It would also help hugely if the announced deaths were given properly. Many, if not most, people will assume the deaths are occurring now. It would be helpful is this was explicitly shown.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited July 2020
    Tim_B said:

    Justice Ginsberg announces she is undergoing chemo for cancer recurrence and is responding well.

    Crap (not your post, just an expression of dismay).
    (CNN)
    "On May 19, I began a course of chemotherapy (gemcitabine) to treat a recurrence of cancer. A periodic scan in February followed by a biopsy revealed lesions on my liver. My recent hospitalizations to remove gall stones and treat an infection were unrelated to this recurrence.
    Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful. The chemotherapy course, however, is yielding positive results. Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear, I am providing this information.
    My most recent scan on July 7 indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease. I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment. I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine. Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work...."


    Tough lady, undertaking what's pretty brutal chemo at the age of 87.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Russia is no superpower but it's deeply arguable that we are a bigger global player than they are. Good to see the "Russians" from you, though, rather than the "Russkies". People mature before your very eyes on here.
    Of course we are a bigger global player than they are. Economically, scientifically and in any other way that actually matters we are far more significant than the Russians.

    When the world's greatest threat at the minute is COVID19 and the world is in desperate need for a vaccine it is no coincidence that our scientists are at the forefront of finding a vaccine to rid the world of this plague . . . while the Russians are doing nothing more than trying to hack and find our data. We are moving the world, they're trying to ride our coat tails.

    PS No maturing, I I have never in my life written "Russkies", the Russians don't deserve an affectionate nickname.
    You ARE maturing - me too btw, I've dropped "oiks" - and let's keep it going by considering the following. When talking about the nefarious political activity of Vladimir Putin, dictator of Russia, would it not be both more factually accurate and tonally appropriate to refer to "Russia" - or even better "Putin" - rather than the "Russians"? Surely it would be.

    Because I sense the reason you feel "the Russians" do not merit an "affectionate" nickname when e.g. the French (Frogs) and the Germans (Krauts) do, is because you are conflating the people of a country with its political leadership. Or maybe there's a different reason. You tell me.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Russia is no superpower but it's deeply arguable that we are a bigger global player than they are. Good to see the "Russians" from you, though, rather than the "Russkies". People mature before your very eyes on here.
    Of course we are a bigger global player than they are. Economically, scientifically and in any other way that actually matters we are far more significant than the Russians.

    When the world's greatest threat at the minute is COVID19 and the world is in desperate need for a vaccine it is no coincidence that our scientists are at the forefront of finding a vaccine to rid the world of this plague . . . while the Russians are doing nothing more than trying to hack and find our data. We are moving the world, they're trying to ride our coat tails.

    PS No maturing, I I have never in my life written "Russkies", the Russians don't deserve an affectionate nickname.
    You ARE maturing - me too btw, I've dropped "oiks" - and let's keep it going by considering the following. When talking about the nefarious political activity of Vladimir Putin, dictator of Russia, would it not be both more factually accurate and tonally appropriate to refer to "Russia" - or even better "Putin" - rather than the "Russians"? Surely it would be.

    Because I sense the reason you feel "the Russians" do not merit an "affectionate" nickname when e.g. the French (Frogs) and the Germans (Krauts) do, is because you are conflating the people of a country with its political leadership. Or maybe there's a different reason. You tell me.
    I never used the word Krauts.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,883

    Back dating in the England all settings numbers -

    The changes go back to March. most in the last month, though.

    image

    Very useful, and so the daily deaths in all settings is below 60?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very good header, thank you. Personally I hope Labour do not go that way. I wouldn't like it. I'd probably resign my membership. But then again, I would still vote for them and so if I'm typical of the new woke metro base, and going "blue" would win back the oiks, perhaps this means it does make sense for the party in electoral terms.

    I think we can agree that this is a misstep from you. Calling them oiks. Nothing serious and god knows enough Lab types are thinking it but probably best not to display it on a website forum.
    Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But what I can promise is that as soon as they vote Labour again they will move from "oik" to "decent ordinary working people". Surely an incentive for them.
    They need something to look forward to.
    Yes! Finger on IT.
    It feels good chatting like this to you. What with your talk of oiks and you being condescending towards them it's like talking to a proper Tory!
    :smile: - But I have their real interests at heart. A difference greater than all the tea in China.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Nigel_Foremain since you're so pent up about 'patriotism' and Russia . . . can I ask you which country you think is more consequential for the world: The United Kingdom or Russia?

    I would say the UK by a long shot. We are a far more significant country than the Russians which is why the Russians are trying to hitch a ride on our coat tails. You seem to have some form of bizarre inferiority complex to a failed borderline third world country. I don't understand why.

    Russia is no superpower but it's deeply arguable that we are a bigger global player than they are. Good to see the "Russians" from you, though, rather than the "Russkies". People mature before your very eyes on here.
    Of course we are a bigger global player than they are. Economically, scientifically and in any other way that actually matters we are far more significant than the Russians.

    When the world's greatest threat at the minute is COVID19 and the world is in desperate need for a vaccine it is no coincidence that our scientists are at the forefront of finding a vaccine to rid the world of this plague . . . while the Russians are doing nothing more than trying to hack and find our data. We are moving the world, they're trying to ride our coat tails.

    PS No maturing, I I have never in my life written "Russkies", the Russians don't deserve an affectionate nickname.
    You ARE maturing - me too btw, I've dropped "oiks" - and let's keep it going by considering the following. When talking about the nefarious political activity of Vladimir Putin, dictator of Russia, would it not be both more factually accurate and tonally appropriate to refer to "Russia" - or even better "Putin" - rather than the "Russians"? Surely it would be.

    Because I sense the reason you feel "the Russians" do not merit an "affectionate" nickname when e.g. the French (Frogs) and the Germans (Krauts) do, is because you are conflating the people of a country with its political leadership. Or maybe there's a different reason. You tell me.
    I never used the word Krauts.
    Good.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Andy_JS said:

    A former Icelandic prime minister writes about the impact of social media.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/17/social-media-the-state-of-things-to-come/

    A disgraced pol who has 'implied that George Soros, "banking elites", the Swedish public broadcaster, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Icelandic public broadcaster conspired against him' being given a platform on Spiked, who could have foreseen that?!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,002
    Nigelb said:

    Tim_B said:

    Justice Ginsberg announces she is undergoing chemo for cancer recurrence and is responding well.

    Crap (not your post, just an expression of dismay).
    (CNN)
    "On May 19, I began a course of chemotherapy (gemcitabine) to treat a recurrence of cancer. A periodic scan in February followed by a biopsy revealed lesions on my liver. My recent hospitalizations to remove gall stones and treat an infection were unrelated to this recurrence.
    Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful. The chemotherapy course, however, is yielding positive results. Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear, I am providing this information.
    My most recent scan on July 7 indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease. I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment. I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine. Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work...."


    Tough lady, undertaking what's pretty brutal chemo at the age of 87.
    Amazing spirit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400


    Bread and butter issues. (And that's a sliced white not an organic artisan ciabatta).

    Now you're speaking my language.


    And focus on the middle 80%. Don't be focused on the 10% at either end.

    And that doesn't even mean stop going after the rich or stop looking out for the veyr poorest. Just don't be obsessive.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    Excess deaths is the only number worth looking at.
    Indeed and there haven't been any for a while now.
    More accurately, the excess deaths are no longer (statistically) significant. The total deaths wobbles from year-to-year, and the Covid effect is no longer big enough to see over the wobbles.

    But 100 deaths/day, 700 deaths/week is still 35,000 deaths per year. Hard to see in the weekly death rate graph, but more than die of lung disease, and enough (if it carried on indefinitely) to be in the top five causes of death in the UK.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    It’s a sad day that the rights and freedoms of many Americans rely on which President is in the WH regarding Supreme Court picks .

    The UK should never go down the road of political appointees to courts . That would be a truly regressive move .
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624

    Back dating in the England all settings numbers -

    The changes go back to March. most in the last month, though.

    image

    Very useful, and so the daily deaths in all settings is below 60?
    Yes

    I find it interesting that no many times people point out that reporting date data is not useful for the current situation... we have people commenting on that days reporting date data.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,703

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    So our Government really could have done a fantastic job after all. It's a theory I suppose, but how do we explain excess deaths?
    I'm talking about the present situation.

    There are no excess deaths at the minute to explain. The last excess deaths were (from memory) recorded over a month ago now. We have negative excess now and have for weeks.
    So the lockdown is preventing other deaths, not just COVID ones?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    nico67 said:

    It’s a sad day that the rights and freedoms of many Americans rely on which President is in the WH regarding Supreme Court picks .

    The UK should never go down the road of political appointees to courts . That would be a truly regressive move .

    Indeed. It's not good for society, nor is it good for the individuals involved, who may be willing to work hard and die on the bench, but must also face intense pressure not to reture at the 'wrong' moment whatever their personal situations.

    But let us not forget that reforming the relationship between judiciary and goverment was in the Tory manifesto, and that the instant reaction of HYUFD (someone who seems to have his finger on the pulse of what the Boris government would like to do) to the prorogation case that politically appointed judges was a necessity, so we know what they want that new relationship to be.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    So our Government really could have done a fantastic job after all. It's a theory I suppose, but how do we explain excess deaths?
    I'm talking about the present situation.

    There are no excess deaths at the minute to explain. The last excess deaths were (from memory) recorded over a month ago now. We have negative excess now and have for weeks.
    So the lockdown is preventing other deaths, not just COVID ones?
    I seem to recall predictions of a surge of deaths due to folk not seeking/receiving treatment for conditions other than Covid during the lockdown. Presumably they've been put away for another day?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    nico67 said:

    It’s a sad day that the rights and freedoms of many Americans rely on which President is in the WH regarding Supreme Court picks .

    The UK should never go down the road of political appointees to courts . That would be a truly regressive move .

    Agreed.
    That the next couple of decades of jurisprudence should depend on a octogenarian surviving her battle with cancer for another four months is simply wrong.

    The latest SC decision to confirm the disenfranchisement of over 5% of the population of Florida, based on whether they can afford to pay fines, is mind boggling in a supposed democracy.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited July 2020

    Andy_JS said:

    So today we have 16 deaths in English hospitals and 114 in all settings. So 98 who did not die in an English hospital. As English hospitals are empty where are these people dying?

    Haven't we established that, for instance, if an apparently healthy person has a heart attack in their home and then tests positive for Covid-19 they get included in the statistics? That would explain something like the 98 figure.
    I’d like to see general numbers though. Are they mostly care homes?
    The issue is though that on average care home residents die within 12 months of admission to a care home.

    This flaw in the data will be massively inflating care home deaths.

    People who caught the virus in a care home and recovered will still be due to die before long because they are sick and very old which is why they are in a care home and not their own home.

    There will be a very large number of people, potentially hundreds or thousands, who caught the virus in a care home, recovered from the virus completely and later died due to other causes. Regrettably and realistically almost all of those who have tested positive and recovered do not have much life expectancy left anyway and are at high risk of death before long . . . and will falsely be recorded as a COVID care home death when the inevitable happens.
    So our Government really could have done a fantastic job after all. It's a theory I suppose, but how do we explain excess deaths?
    I'm talking about the present situation.

    There are no excess deaths at the minute to explain. The last excess deaths were (from memory) recorded over a month ago now. We have negative excess now and have for weeks.
    So the lockdown is preventing other deaths, not just COVID ones?
    I seem to recall predictions of a surge of deaths due to folk not seeking/receiving treatment for conditions other than Covid during the lockdown. Presumably they've been put away for another day?
    That'll probably be a slow burn. Missed diagnoses etc.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited July 2020
    I did think a recent BBC piece on the US Supreme Court was interesting, for nothing other than one rare case where one liberal justice sided with the conservatives.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53357590?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c6lw1qzwlp2t/us-supreme-court&link_location=live-reporting-story

    Questions of political appointments aside, having mandatory retirement dates for our own Supreme Court (less powerful though it is) was a good move. It's not as though there is no use that can be made of a former Supreme Court justice, there'll always be enquiries to chair.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited July 2020

    Back dating in the England all settings numbers -

    The changes go back to March. most in the last month, though.

    image

    Very useful, and so the daily deaths in all settings is below 60?
    Yes

    I find it interesting that no many times people point out that reporting date data is not useful for the current situation... we have people commenting on that days reporting date data.
    I know it's been said before, but many thanks @Malmesbury for your regular well-presented graphs and tables. They really are helpful for understanding what is going on.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Further to my header, Martin Kettle has this opinion piece in Guardian:

    "A century ago, Labour was a working-class party with some middle-class supporters. Today it is increasingly the reverse. The tension between those who see Labour as a party of the poor and struggling, and those who see it as a party of liberal and progressive values, has a long history. But the coalition between them that worked in 1945, 1966 and 1997 came close to breaking apart in 2019 when significant numbers of English working-class former Labour voters turned to the Conservatives to deliver Brexit."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/15/liberalism-liberal-traditions-conservatives
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    nico67 said:

    It’s a sad day that the rights and freedoms of many Americans rely on which President is in the WH regarding Supreme Court picks .

    The UK should never go down the road of political appointees to courts . That would be a truly regressive move .

    Violently concur.
This discussion has been closed.