politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After another lacklustre Johnson PMQs performance a reminder h

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

another_richard said:

Malmesbury said:

NHS Hospital numbers out

Headline - 10 - another low
Last 7 days - 10
Yesterday - 3

Yesterday was a 0.

3 deaths each for 20/7 and 19/7.

Yes - my apologies

Another 0 for initial reporting on a weekday.

I need to adjust my system to generate initial zero days.

Theuniondivvie said:

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

Why are we only finding this out now?

I’ve just had an email asking me if I want to buy the new book by Agatha Christie...

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Essexit said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years

By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.

Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.

Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.

Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...

I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway.
.
Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.

I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.

That's BoZo's message

Alphabet_Soup said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

I have occasionally been known to type "kicked" instead of "licked". It's an easy mistake.

So, any guesses for his safe word?

RobD said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

I have occasionally been known to type "kicked" instead of "licked". It's an easy mistake.

So, any guesses for his safe word?

mazel tov

While its generally considered that Corbyn had an iron grip on the Labour Party membership its worth noting that even "Owen Who?" managed to get just under 40% challenging him in 2016.

3 years later and following a humiliating election drubbing and with a more serious contender than Owen Who? I see no reason why Starmer couldn't have won a clean election victory on a campaign of moving on from Corbynism and expelling any antisemites.

RobD said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

I have occasionally been known to type "kicked" instead of "licked". It's an easy mistake.

So, any guesses for his safe word?

I had to google for that expression!

Scott_xP said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.

That's BoZo's message

Boris was explicit when he was campaigning that he rejected Theresa May's deal, what it stood for and what changes he was seeking. When he won then he had the moral authority and mandate to expel those who couldn't get with the program. Starmer didn't do that.

Scott_xP said:

Carnyx said:

I had to google for that expression!

Which site did you find it on?

Google! (the entry on the results list was quite sufficient)

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Essexit said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years

By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.

Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.

Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.

Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...

I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway.
.
Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.

I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?

I'm at a loss as to how removing people mentioned in a very embarrassing report about racism stops the leader being the "Unity" candidate...

The only people who seem to be saying such are either those who are named, those likely to be named or those who have done similar and hate that their racism is being pointed out.

That's whom he was seeking unity with though.

You don't seek unity with a cancer, you seek to cut it out.

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.

That's BoZo's message

Boris was explicit when he was campaigning that he rejected Theresa May's deal, what it stood for and what changes he was seeking.

Why did he vote for it then?

Theuniondivvie said:

Can we expect to see Sumps on the 'no face nappies' barricades?

https://twitter.com/legalhackette/status/1285938500987236353?s=20

So if I'm not satisfied with the way the law around Brexit was made, can I keep my EU passport? And then then there's a few other EU related things I'd like to keep too.

Sadly, don't see it!

OT - Not sure why BoJo is emulating Trumpsky. Certainly NOT a good look. AND can't even set up some internet back-chatter by calling his opponent - Starmer or Sunak - a "demented vegtable".

OFF TOPIC - What are the odds, that Trumpsky's shout-out to/for La Maxwell at yesterday's typically weird "briefing" was done out of love & respect for HM The Queen?

Or is it (among other things) a signal to His Foul Lowness to keep his lip buttoned and for La Maxwell to do the same? After all, the Twitter in Chief does have the power (for the next six months anyway) to spring her from durance vile, just like he did for Roger Stone.

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Essexit said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years

By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.

Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.

Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.

Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...

I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway.
.
Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.

I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?

I'm at a loss as to how removing people mentioned in a very embarrassing report about racism stops the leader being the "Unity" candidate...

The only people who seem to be saying such are either those who are named, those likely to be named or those who have done similar and hate that their racism is being pointed out.

That's whom he was seeking unity with though.

You don't seek unity with a cancer, you seek to cut it out.

Nope he's was seeking to be the unity across the left leaning and more centralist parts of the labour party. And not all of them are racist in the same way that not all Tory members are 100% out for themselves screw everyone else...

Message to PBers.

If you are friends with supporters of Everton then please reach out to them today and over the next few days, tonight will not be a pleasant experience for them.

Philip_Thompson said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.

I don't think the party will let him continue as long as that

He won an 80 seat majority, still leads in the polls and on favourability ratings is polling the same now as he was before the election last year.

The party will defenestrate failing leaders but it took years to get rid of even Theresa May. Johnson is no May. Two terms is a good length of time for a PM, 2028 gives Sunak a year to be in charge before the 2029 General Election.

Johnson will be a liability in 2024, never mind 2029. And the big weakness in your argument about Sunak as his replacement is your assumption that the Chancellor of the E's current popularity will survive the economic tsunami to come. Changing an unpopular leader only works when it's seen as a change of direction. If Johnson's eventual unpopularity comes about on the back of economic failures, putting the Chancellor in charge won't work.

The parallel is I think with Anthony Barber, someone initially seen as integral to the Heath government's initial popularity as expansionary policies were followed, only to be seen as the architect of the retrenchment that eventually followed. Barber wouldn't have saved the Conservatives in 1974.

You're assuming there's going to be an economic tsunami. You're assuming economic failure.

If the government guides the country through COVID, through the end of transition and there is post vaccine from 2021 onwards a boom in the UK economy . . . then Boris will deserve a second majority victory and Sunak will be well placed to replace him when the Tories look for a sixth election victory in a row in 2029.

Yes, that is indeed what I am assuming. And I think my assumptions are going to be closer to the eventual reality than your very rosy ones.

To be clear I think there's going to be a very deep recession this year, awfully bad. But going forward that sets a low baseline that will permit booming growth as the economy gets rebuilt. Similar to the 1920s for 1918 pandemic and WWI and also similar to the boom times that followed WWII. Devastation leaves behind potential for booming growth afterwards.

But having said that, would you say that if I am right and you are wrong and the economy is booming by 2024 then Boris and Sunak would deserve kudos and maybe another election victory?

If the economy is booming pre-2024, would you support tax rises to "fix the roof while the sun is shining"?

No_Offence_Alan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.

I don't think the party will let him continue as long as that

He won an 80 seat majority, still leads in the polls and on favourability ratings is polling the same now as he was before the election last year.

The party will defenestrate failing leaders but it took years to get rid of even Theresa May. Johnson is no May. Two terms is a good length of time for a PM, 2028 gives Sunak a year to be in charge before the 2029 General Election.

Johnson will be a liability in 2024, never mind 2029. And the big weakness in your argument about Sunak as his replacement is your assumption that the Chancellor of the E's current popularity will survive the economic tsunami to come. Changing an unpopular leader only works when it's seen as a change of direction. If Johnson's eventual unpopularity comes about on the back of economic failures, putting the Chancellor in charge won't work.

The parallel is I think with Anthony Barber, someone initially seen as integral to the Heath government's initial popularity as expansionary policies were followed, only to be seen as the architect of the retrenchment that eventually followed. Barber wouldn't have saved the Conservatives in 1974.

You're assuming there's going to be an economic tsunami. You're assuming economic failure.

If the government guides the country through COVID, through the end of transition and there is post vaccine from 2021 onwards a boom in the UK economy . . . then Boris will deserve a second majority victory and Sunak will be well placed to replace him when the Tories look for a sixth election victory in a row in 2029.

Yes, that is indeed what I am assuming. And I think my assumptions are going to be closer to the eventual reality than your very rosy ones.

To be clear I think there's going to be a very deep recession this year, awfully bad. But going forward that sets a low baseline that will permit booming growth as the economy gets rebuilt. Similar to the 1920s for 1918 pandemic and WWI and also similar to the boom times that followed WWII. Devastation leaves behind potential for booming growth afterwards.

But having said that, would you say that if I am right and you are wrong and the economy is booming by 2024 then Boris and Sunak would deserve kudos and maybe another election victory?

If the economy is booming pre-2024, would you support tax rises to "fix the roof while the sun is shining"?

I don't believe tax rises "fix the roof" but yes if the economy is booming pre-2024 then I would want to see the deficit reduced annually, fixing the roof while the sun is shining. 100% yes.

Complete fantasy that the Tories might choose to dispose of a man that can't lose versus one that can.

StuartDickson said:

Daftie Johnson banging on about that bridge to Ireland again. The man is a fruitcake.

####!&$$###?

So you like him then?

'Fruitcake' obviously being the least bad thing one can say about someone else in Scotland. (Or at least I think it is)

https://twitter.com/Banxcartoons/status/1285954198627061761

Scott_xP said:

Theuniondivvie said:

One wonders whether Team SKS are just displaying the standard Lab ignorance & lack of interest in matters Scotch or if they thought they'd just get the dig in anyway and hope no one notices.

Probably more to do with this

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1285540365869748224

...apart from Alex, who not only led the movement and the party, but shills on TV

That's a stupid statement by Sturgeon. Putin doesn't care if your aim aligns with his, he merely wants to promote division. So Russian trolls back Independence and Unionism, Remain and Leave, Tories and Labour etc. The Russians aren't pushing a particular button, they are repeatedly whacking every button as fast as they can. So this is a problem for all parties and causes in the UK and further afield.

glw said:

Scott_xP said:

Theuniondivvie said:

One wonders whether Team SKS are just displaying the standard Lab ignorance & lack of interest in matters Scotch or if they thought they'd just get the dig in anyway and hope no one notices.

Probably more to do with this

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1285540365869748224

...apart from Alex, who not only led the movement and the party, but shills on TV

That's a stupid statement by Sturgeon. Putin doesn't care if your aim aligns with his, he merely wants to promote division. So Russian trolls back Independence and Unionism, Remain and Leave, Tories and Labour etc. The Russians aren't pushing a particular button, they are repeatedly whacking every button as fast as they can. So this is a problem for all parties and causes in the UK and further afield.

Spot on.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.

I think in a system like ours even the greatest would struggle to make that long, and that without massive unforeseen events.

I do though think Sunak is being massively over hyped.

England all settings deaths

glw said:

Scott_xP said:

Theuniondivvie said:

One wonders whether Team SKS are just displaying the standard Lab ignorance & lack of interest in matters Scotch or if they thought they'd just get the dig in anyway and hope no one notices.

Probably more to do with this

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1285540365869748224

...apart from Alex, who not only led the movement and the party, but shills on TV

That's a stupid statement by Sturgeon. Putin doesn't care if your aim aligns with his, he merely wants to promote division. So Russian trolls back Independence and Unionism, Remain and Leave, Tories and Labour etc. The Russians aren't pushing a particular button, they are repeatedly whacking every button as fast as they can. So this is a problem for all parties and causes in the UK and further afield.

Agreed, for such a talented politician thats a very lazy response.

Andy_Cooke said:

squareroot2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The death of a meme was announced today,

Peacefully at home (location unclear) after a long illness, 'RBS will leave an indy Scotland' passed away in its sleep surrounded by regretful Unionists.

Nae floors.

Requiescat in pace


'RBS will leave Scotland if voters back independence'

https://tinyurl.com/y3cx9gzm

'SCOTLAND BOMBSHELL: Royal Bank to move to LONDON if Sturgeon wins independence'

https://tinyurl.com/y6atrk6n

'RBS threatens to quit Scotland if SNP wins independence as it rebrands to NatWest'

https://tinyurl.com/y3ot4k8o

'RBS ditches toxic name after nearly 300 years: Bank to be called Natwest from today'

https://tinyurl.com/y6sjertl

The last doesn't seem to deal with the issues from the former: Is Natwest going to be based in London or Scotland?

Still based in Edinburgh, no jobs are being transferred or lost, the HQ is in Edinburgh.

It's simple logic, people get enraged about RBS, work in a RBS call centre when people ring up in financial distress, say you lot get bailed out, I want a bailout.

Natwest is more benign, plus Natwest represents circa 80% of the group's trade.

So next referendum the line would be "Natwest threatens to relocate to London . . . "

Nat West promised to help me with certain things when my wife died, and then they reneged so I moved to HSBC who I am now dumping because of their stance on Hong Kong.
Difficult to know where to go to.... Barclays has history with S Africa, Lloyds is Lloyds. as I say difficult...

TSB?
They were separated back out from Lloyds a while back.

Don’t bother, they’re shit.

Maybe the Yorkshire bank, or Virgin Money as it’s now called?

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.

I think in a system like ours even the greatest would struggle to make that long, and that without massive unforeseen events.

I do though think Sunak is being massively over hyped.

His rise reminds me somewhat of John Major’s.

A politician of obvious ability, promoted far too rapidly because an authoritarian PM was refusing to work intelligently with colleagues and couldn’t bear dissent even while cocking up massively everywhere.

And it didn’t end too well for Major.

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.

I don't think the party will let him continue as long as that

He won an 80 seat majority, still leads in the polls and on favourability ratings is polling the same now as he was before the election last year.

The party will defenestrate failing leaders but it took years to get rid of even Theresa May. Johnson is no May. Two terms is a good length of time for a PM, 2028 gives Sunak a year to be in charge before the 2029 General Election.

Johnson will be a liability in 2024, never mind 2029. And the big weakness in your argument about Sunak as his replacement is your assumption that the Chancellor of the E's current popularity will survive the economic tsunami to come. Changing an unpopular leader only works when it's seen as a change of direction. If Johnson's eventual unpopularity comes about on the back of economic failures, putting the Chancellor in charge won't work.

The parallel is I think with Anthony Barber, someone initially seen as integral to the Heath government's initial popularity as expansionary policies were followed, only to be seen as the architect of the retrenchment that eventually followed. Barber wouldn't have saved the Conservatives in 1974.

You're assuming there's going to be an economic tsunami. You're assuming economic failure.

If the government guides the country through COVID, through the end of transition and there is post vaccine from 2021 onwards a boom in the UK economy . . . then Boris will deserve a second majority victory and Sunak will be well placed to replace him when the Tories look for a sixth election victory in a row in 2029.

Brexit will cost money, Covid-19 will cost money, so expecting a boom is deluded.

And WWI didn't cost money? The Spanish Flu didn't cost money? WWII didn't cost money? They were both followed by two of the biggest booms this country has ever seen.

"In 1919–1920 there was a short-lived boom in the British economy, caused by a rush of investment pent-up during the war years and another rush of orders for new shipping to replace the millions of tons lost.[177] However, with the end of war orders, a serious depression hit the economy by 1921-22."

Before WW2 we had an Empire.
"Although Britain achieved ultimate victory in the war, the economic costs were enormous. Six years of prolonged warfare and heavy losses of merchant shipping meant that Britain had lost two-thirds of her pre-war export trade by 1945.[211] The loss of her export markets also caused a serious shortage of US dollars, which were crucial to servicing Britain's war debt and maintaining imports from the United States. Most of Britain's gold and currency reserves were depleted and the Government had been forced to sell off the bulk of British overseas assets to fund the war effort.[211] When Lend Lease was terminated by the United States in August 1945, Britain was unable to pay for the import of essential supplies from America. "

https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1285961598247604224

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1285961598247604224

Sounds like he represents the Trump presidency pretty well.

https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1285940065768804352

Essexit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.

Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....

eek said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years

This Government wears the badge of a group that has been in power for 10 years.

The leadership at the top may have slightly changed but it's the same group...

No, that's just wrong. People are criticising Boris for trying to tie Starmer to Corbyn, so it is equally incorrect to say Boris has anything to do with Cameron/May era Tory govt. Starmer probably has more in common with Miliband than Boris has with PM May or Cameron

Theuniondivvie said:

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

That confirms it, he was a wrong un

MarqueeMark said:

Essexit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.

Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....

That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.

So following the UK's departure from the EU, I understand Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU budget.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The really important news of the day.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20

I have occasionally been known to type "kicked" instead of "licked". It's an easy mistake.

I got dumped by a girlfriend when I sent her a text saying 'I can't wait until I get home and kick* your puppy*'

Fecking auto-correct.

The RSPCA were involved.

*The words that were auto-corrected.

If it only autocorrected either one of those words, you'd still have been dumped....

In my case the offending sentence (without the intercession of autocorrect) was "Jones sent off after 40 minutes licking Roberts in the penalty area". Halcyon days. Cub reporter. Non-league football.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Essexit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.

Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....

That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.

You're the one who voted for Corbyn's antisemites in 2019.

and bought Lib Dem 50 ups!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fecking lawyers.

https://twitter.com/DanielWickham93/status/1285961335658946560

If you think that's odd, have a look at this rare photo of Joe Biden I've found. Why do you think he's shaved his beard off now? Is it because he's secretly an extremist and is hiding that from us.

We demand the truth!

MikeSmithson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Essexit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285893648241106950

This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot

It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.

Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....

That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.

Of course its bollocks.

How dare anyone accuse Starmer of having principles?

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1285957435413471234

The Minister for Propaganda speaks.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285962551071846400

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285962573234438144

Yesterday Witty said something about not realising Care Homes employed agency staff. I was seconded a couple of days a week to whatever the Inspecting Authority was from about 199 until 2003 when I retired We used to check the agency staff just in case they were working double and triple

After that I did some consultancy for a firm of Care Home operators, and we used to worry about the same thing.

The fact is that whatever the Health Ministry or Department was called there was one constant throughout that time. No-one in authority gave a flying f&^k about Care Homes. Old people, disabled people, were put in them and that was that.

slade said:

Latest on the coronavirus situation. Today I received a letter from my local council signed by the Leader, the Chief Executive, and the Director of Public Health. It warned of a possible spike in new infections and re-iterated all the precautions to be taken. But interestingly the core message was repeated in Arabic, Urdu, Gujarati, Kurdish, Mandarin, Spanish, Polish, Romanian, and Hungarian (an interesting collection of languages).

Which local council, as a matter of interest?

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fecking lawyers.

https://twitter.com/DanielWickham93/status/1285961335658946560

As bad as his Tweet is it is some of the replies that are the most disturbing.

Polly Styrene there, preparing for an Xray Specs concert. Some of those gigs were rough.

turbotubbs said:

Malmesbury said:

NerysHughes said:

MaxPB said:

NerysHughes said:

Malmesbury said:

England all settings deaths

So on the 20th July we have had 3 deaths recorded in English hospitals and 48 in all settings. Is this likely? Where did the other 45 die?

Care homes, lots of them from natural causes but they get included in the stats until the DoH figures out how not to.

They are basically nonsense figures

No, we answered this.

Demented lawyers in their wife's kimonos, with baseball bats.

Can they not have a colour on the graph too?

Ultra violet for the ultra violent. Obviously.