politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If You’re in a Glasshouse …..

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I really hope Labour can start to take the moral high ground again, it should be squeaky clean.

No party is squeaky clean.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I really hope Labour can start to take the moral high ground again, it should be squeaky clean.

Labour.. squeaky clean..LOL There is as much sleaze in Labour as in any of the other parties. Anyone who takes the moral high ground is heading for a fall. Ask John Major about his Victorian values...

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Matthew Goodwin is a bit shit, why is he held up as some kind of intellectual God

He writes well, thus makes a good commentator. I couldn't speak as to his academic worth.

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’

Some light humour

https://img2.rtve.es/rtve/minutoaminuto/userfiles/image/20200804-637321688163164967.jpg

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Black_Rook said:

Black_Rook said:

alex_ said:

Re: Englands "COVID deaths" numbers. Isn't it about time that PHE admitted that they've seriously cocked up with the counting? Our hospitals are half empty and they are claiming that the vast majority of people suffering seriously enough from Covid that it kills them are not going to hospital. I understand the message "protect the NHS" might have been taken onboard, but not to this extent...

Whereas there are other countries with far fewer reported deaths (including population adjusted) which are reporting high levels of ICU occupation and severe shortages of hospital space.

At a guess, the PHE daily death count probably contains quite a lot of those "people who had Covid in March and got run over by a bus in July" type of cases, supplemented by genuine deaths in the home - perhaps because very old people in multi-generational households in the hotspot areas really are choosing not to be carted off to hospital but to stay put and let nature take its course.

But yes, it is also quite true that - regardless of the gradual increase in cases identified by testing, which has now been ongoing for a month - total Covid patients in hospitals (both the ventilator and non-ventilator cases) continue to trickle steadily downwards. At the present rate of decline, the total number of hospital patients with Covid should be down below 1,000 in about another 7-10 days.

FWIW, measuring across the week from the Sunday before last to the one just gone, both total hospital Covid cases and ventilator bed patients are down by 11%. Today's NHS England death count - bearing in mind that this is Tuesday so we're now back to weekday reporting levels - is only 6 (although there are an additional 5 cases where Covid is listed as a cause on the death certificate without any positive test result having been obtained.)

I do wonder why *anyone* is dying in the community. If you're ill enough to die, you're ill enough to be in hospital. And there's plenty of capacity. Apparently 88 deaths in England today and only 6-11 in hospital. That doesn't really pass the smell test.

Sigh - 88 deaths *reported* today.

That means filling in the reporting hole on the weekend. Using PHE's methodology, deaths are probably below 40 per day now.

Yes I forgot about the *day reported* thing.. Mea culpa. But if we look back a week at the Total Day-of-Deaths file there were only 8 deaths in English hospitals on 28 July.

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Well, her appointment to the benches has already made many people cross.

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I really hope Labour can start to take the moral high ground again, it should be squeaky clean.

Labour.. squeaky clean..LOL There is as much sleaze in Labour as in any of the other parties. Anyone who takes the moral high ground is heading for a fall. Ask John Major about his Victorian values...

What this tells me is that we should end political patronage and the habit of giving people stupid titles. A Labour government would be just as bad (and has been in the past). An elected chamber with 1910 powers (as the Australian Senate has) would be ideal.

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

Why should he get a peerage at all? What has he done or has to offer that he deserves to be put in the legislature?

It reads to me like a reward for the fact that he could no longer prosper as an MP because of his opposition to Brexit. I may be wrong. But that is how it comes across.

Personally, to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety or conflict of interest, no immediate family member of the PM or other Ministers should get honours awarded by the government.

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

Why should he get a peerage at all? What has he done or has to offer that he deserves to be put in the legislature?

It reads to me like a reward for the fact that he could no longer prosper as an MP because of his opposition to Brexit. I may be wrong. But that is how it comes across.

Personally, to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety or conflict of interest, no immediate family member of the PM or other Ministers should get honours awarded by the government.

Or better still, we should abolish the Lords and then it wouldn’t even be theoretically possible.

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’

Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.

I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.

So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?

Well, it makes a change from giving your brother socks for Christmas. (Wasn't there something rum about his reappointment as a minister by Big Brother? Something like Jo, alone, didn't have to sign the Brexit suicide pact?)

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.

I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?

Wasn't she nominated by the BJ government? Aiui a peer doesn't need to take the whip of the party/government that nominates them.

https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1290260765140611072

JohnLilburne said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I really hope Labour can start to take the moral high ground again, it should be squeaky clean.

Labour.. squeaky clean..LOL There is as much sleaze in Labour as in any of the other parties. Anyone who takes the moral high ground is heading for a fall. Ask John Major about his Victorian values...

What this tells me is that we should end political patronage and the habit of giving people stupid titles. A Labour government would be just as bad (and has been in the past). An elected chamber with 1910 powers (as the Australian Senate has) would be ideal.

Well yes. This is the reason i struggle to get too worked up about the incompetence of Johnson and the Govt from a party political standpoint. Because i think our political and media environment fundamentally encourages the failings of the current Government, and would equally apply to others.

It's a similar situation in the USA. Trump is bad (and i think in his case uniquely bad and takes it to a completely different level to what has come before) but there is something rotten in the US body politic.

In both countries there is a serious need to reset the clock. To somehow find a leadership that can bring people together and move beyond kneejerk partisanship. That doesn't lead to the replacing of one party with another determining to wreak revenge for what the had to endure under the previous regime. But i can't see it happening. (Ironically i think it might be easier to see it happening in the US even though (or even because) they are so far worse overall. Although their media are generally better.

I doubt many people know who Claire Fox is or care much if told.

I've heard a couple of hostile comments about JoJo though and understandably so.

Arguably the worst peerage since Warsi.

JohnLilburne said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

Why should he get a peerage at all? What has he done or has to offer that he deserves to be put in the legislature?

It reads to me like a reward for the fact that he could no longer prosper as an MP because of his opposition to Brexit. I may be wrong. But that is how it comes across.

Personally, to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety or conflict of interest, no immediate family member of the PM or other Ministers should get honours awarded by the government.

All other political appointments however are made precisely for improper reasons. Supporting the PM. Donating to the party. A bung for being rejected by the electorate. Etc etc. Giving a place to your brother is no better and no worse than that.

The thing is he's not yet even 50! In another era he'd be barely starting his political career. He would still be ambitious, and to be ambitious in politics you need (or at least used to need) to seek democratic legitimacy. It made sense for the House of Lords to be populated by those of no ambition who simply couldn't bear the effort that democracy required any more. But accepted a loss of ambition and potential power as a result. But incredibly for many these days the House of Lords has almost become a starting point. And many a lot younger than Jo Johnson.

By eagerly promoting people into the House of Lords (including fairly young people as a way to appoint them to Govt posts) the Govt diminishes our democracy itself, and the idea that they, as elected politicians have a legitimacy and accountability that their appointees don't.

Sad.

Even worse, there's Cummings.

JohnLilburne said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’

Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.

I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb. I welcome people with such service getting in, particularly from non-political fields, and I think too many ex-MPs get in despite not that much distinction, but making it a point about the length of his tenure as an MP is silly.

I certainly think that MPs who have lost their seats should be ineligible for the Lords. If they have been rejected by the voters, they should stay rejected. Where people have stood down maybe they should be required to serve one Parliament before being eligible.

And MSPs and their Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues.

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1290260765140611072

A chap can change his mind can't he?
Or alternatively have no fixed principles in the first place.

He gets full Marx on that score.

Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.

JohnLilburne said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?

I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.

Why should he get a peerage at all? What has he done or has to offer that he deserves to be put in the legislature?

It reads to me like a reward for the fact that he could no longer prosper as an MP because of his opposition to Brexit. I may be wrong. But that is how it comes across.

Personally, to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety or conflict of interest, no immediate family member of the PM or other Ministers should get honours awarded by the government.

All other political appointments however are made precisely for improper reasons. Supporting the PM. Donating to the party. A bung for being rejected by the electorate. Etc etc. Giving a place to your brother is no better and no worse than that.

I’d stop all that as well, frankly. And place an upper limit of £50,000 on the amount that any one person or organization can give to a political party in a year.

Let them try and widen their supporters rather than rely on a few rich individuals or bodies. And if they can’t raise any money, boo-bloody-hoo. They’ll have to live within their means, just like the rest of us.

This is why I was confident Boris would not be elected leader of the Conservative Party. I was wrong. @HYUFD was right: the polls were all that mattered.

alex_ said:

JohnLilburne said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I really hope Labour can start to take the moral high ground again, it should be squeaky clean.

Labour.. squeaky clean..LOL There is as much sleaze in Labour as in any of the other parties. Anyone who takes the moral high ground is heading for a fall. Ask John Major about his Victorian values...

What this tells me is that we should end political patronage and the habit of giving people stupid titles. A Labour government would be just as bad (and has been in the past). An elected chamber with 1910 powers (as the Australian Senate has) would be ideal.

Well yes. This is the reason i struggle to get too worked up about the incompetence of Johnson and the Govt from a party political standpoint. Because i think our political and media environment fundamentally encourages the failings of the current Government, and would equally apply to others.

It's a similar situation in the USA. Trump is bad (and i think in his case uniquely bad and takes it to a completely different level to what has come before) but there is something rotten in the US body politic.

In both countries there is a serious need to reset the clock. To somehow find a leadership that can bring people together and move beyond kneejerk partisanship. That doesn't lead to the replacing of one party with another determining to wreak revenge for what the had to endure under the previous regime. But i can't see it happening. (Ironically i think it might be easier to see it happening in the US even though (or even because) they are so far worse overall. Although their media are generally better.

This may be a minority view but I do not think Trump is the problem. Rather, it is those Republicans who have convinced themselves the Democrats are so evil that anything is permissible to defeat them, even if corrupt or dishonest or illegal.

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.

I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?

Why do you despise her?

When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.

Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.

That's quite enough on its own for me.

Very well said.

RochdalePioneers said:

Its a good piece. But the Tories handing out gongs to their own is hardly news. Nor is their hypocrisy on such things.

It may not be news. But it still needs excoriating when it happens.

I am fucking furious about the debasement of public life in this country.

If you try and behave decently and competently and act with integrity, you’re just a mug, you’re taken for a fool.

We can all be world weary and go “oh it’s always been like that. Why get het up. The other lot are just as bad.”

Or we can bloody well refuse to put up with this and call out such behaviour and expect more, expect better. Britain should be better than this. We should not be worn down into cynical world-weariness.

I’m rapidly beginning to head for the ropes and lampposts end of the spectrum.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

alex_ said:

JohnLilburne said:

squareroot2 said:

Labour.. squeaky clean..LOL There is as much sleaze in Labour as in any of the other parties. Anyone who takes the moral high ground is heading for a fall. Ask John Major about his Victorian values...

What this tells me is that we should end political patronage and the habit of giving people stupid titles. A Labour government would be just as bad (and has been in the past). An elected chamber with 1910 powers (as the Australian Senate has) would be ideal.

Well yes. This is the reason i struggle to get too worked up about the incompetence of Johnson and the Govt from a party political standpoint. Because i think our political and media environment fundamentally encourages the failings of the current Government, and would equally apply to others.

It's a similar situation in the USA. Trump is bad (and i think in his case uniquely bad and takes it to a completely different level to what has come before) but there is something rotten in the US body politic.

In both countries there is a serious need to reset the clock. To somehow find a leadership that can bring people together and move beyond kneejerk partisanship. That doesn't lead to the replacing of one party with another determining to wreak revenge for what the had to endure under the previous regime. But i can't see it happening. (Ironically i think it might be easier to see it happening in the US even though (or even because) they are so far worse overall. Although their media are generally better.

This may be a minority view but I do not think Trump is the problem. Rather, it is those Republicans who have convinced themselves the Democrats are so evil that anything is permissible to defeat them, even if corrupt or dishonest or illegal.

Oh, in many ways he's a symptom not a cause. But i think Trump has added a level of incompetence and willingness to even disdain need to play lipservice to accepted norms that has taken things beyond what has gone before. Although maybe you might argue that at least he's doing what he's doing in plain sight.

alex_ said:

another_richard said:

I doubt many people know who Claire Fox is or care much if told.

I've heard a couple of hostile comments about JoJo though and understandably so.

Arguably the worst peerage since Warsi.

Chakrabati?

There was nothing wrong with Chakrabarti's peerage - her behaviour afterwards is less impressive.

DavidL said:

Vince, not satisfied with throwing his wicket away has now had 2 drops that are going to cost England the game. Harsh on Stirling perhaps but surely Ireland’s motm.

You can have that one.

I fear it’s too late though.

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.

I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?

Why do you despise her?

When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.

Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.

That's quite enough on its own for me.

Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.

I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?

My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.

I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?

Why do you despise her?

When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.

Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.

That's quite enough on its own for me.

Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.

I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?

My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.

If true, that would be more evidence of Cummings’ stupidity and poor judgement.

Not that more evidence is needed, of course.

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1290260765140611072

A chap can change his mind can't he?
Or alternatively have no fixed principles in the first place.

He gets full Marx on that score.

Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.

It was widely reported at the time of Martin McGuinness’s death that HMQ sent a private letter of condolence to his widow. Well, I bloody well hope that whoever advises her advises her to send one to John Hume’s widow too. Compared to Hume, McGuinness was a moral pygmy who was not fit to lace Hume’s shoes.

I wish we had more men of the calibre of Hume in public life. A genuinely brave man. I particularly like the story told that at the end of his life when he was suffering from dementia he still liked to go for walks along the river Foyle and people would see him and just walk with him to keep him company, to keep him safe. To be such a man, to have earned the respect and love of people at the end of your life, well, that is real achievement.

Hume was a giant of a man, who stood tall when it was both important and dangerous to do so. This is one of my favourite obituaries:

https://twitter.com/_amcintyre/status/1290239533972205568?s=09

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.

I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?

Why do you despise her?

When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.

Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.

That's quite enough on its own for me.

Very well said.

RochdalePioneers said:

Its a good piece. But the Tories handing out gongs to their own is hardly news. Nor is their hypocrisy on such things.

It may not be news. But it still needs excoriating when it happens.

I am fucking furious about the debasement of public life in this country.

If you try and behave decently and competently and act with integrity, you’re just a mug, you’re taken for a fool.

We can all be world weary and go “oh it’s always been like that. Why get het up. The other lot are just as bad.”

Or we can bloody well refuse to put up with this and call out such behaviour and expect more, expect better. Britain should be better than this. We should not be worn down into cynical world-weariness.

I’m rapidly beginning to head for the ropes and lampposts end of the spectrum.

Oh I can see why. The key news today was the government telling big pharma to hold 6 weeks supply. Why? Because it thinks it a realistic risk that we have significant enough disruption at the end of the transition to run shord of meds. The industry has already said they can't store 6 weeks worth. And neither can the food industry.

Have people hungry and dying. With these wazzocks insisting its Good for Britain. And I fear for the reaction as millions realise they've been gaslit to vote for their own destruction.

Has James Vince reached the level of PB opprobrium that Jade Dernbach achieved ?

ydoethur said:

Vince you utter cretin.

What did you put on your fingers before coming out?

Nicely played by Balbirnie though.

And now he misses a run out.

another_richard said:

Has James Vince reached the level of PB opprobrium that Jade Dernbach achieved ?

Yes.

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

Beirut blast: Dozens dead and thousands injured, health minister says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53656220

Sadly, always seemed likely.

Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.

But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.

It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.

How is aid going to get in?

You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?

Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.

But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.

Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.

And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.

Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.

It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.

So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.

Not that Netanyahu would, because he’s a twat.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Vince you utter cretin.

What did you put on your fingers before coming out?

Nicely played by Balbirnie though.

And now he misses a run out.

You can claim that one too. Although that’s an ominous start!

Foxy said:

JohnLilburne said:

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Black_Rook said:

Black_Rook said:

alex_ said:

Re: Englands "COVID deaths" numbers. Isn't it about time that PHE admitted that they've seriously cocked up with the counting? Our hospitals are half empty and they are claiming that the vast majority of people suffering seriously enough from Covid that it kills them are not going to hospital. I understand the message "protect the NHS" might have been taken onboard, but not to this extent...

Whereas there are other countries with far fewer reported deaths (including population adjusted) which are reporting high levels of ICU occupation and severe shortages of hospital space.

At a guess, the PHE daily death count probably contains quite a lot of those "people who had Covid in March and got run over by a bus in July" type of cases, supplemented by genuine deaths in the home - perhaps because very old people in multi-generational households in the hotspot areas really are choosing not to be carted off to hospital but to stay put and let nature take its course.

But yes, it is also quite true that - regardless of the gradual increase in cases identified by testing, which has now been ongoing for a month - total Covid patients in hospitals (both the ventilator and non-ventilator cases) continue to trickle steadily downwards. At the present rate of decline, the total number of hospital patients with Covid should be down below 1,000 in about another 7-10 days.

FWIW, measuring across the week from the Sunday before last to the one just gone, both total hospital Covid cases and ventilator bed patients are down by 11%. Today's NHS England death count - bearing in mind that this is Tuesday so we're now back to weekday reporting levels - is only 6 (although there are an additional 5 cases where Covid is listed as a cause on the death certificate without any positive test result having been obtained.)

I do wonder why *anyone* is dying in the community. If you're ill enough to die, you're ill enough to be in hospital. And there's plenty of capacity. Apparently 88 deaths in England today and only 6-11 in hospital. That doesn't really pass the smell test.

Sigh - 88 deaths *reported* today.

That means filling in the reporting hole on the weekend. Using PHE's methodology, deaths are probably below 40 per day now.

Yes I forgot about the *day reported* thing.. Mea culpa. But if we look back a week at the Total Day-of-Deaths file there were only 8 deaths in English hospitals on 28 July.

There may be a number of reasons. They could have died of late Covid-19 complications such as renal failure, strokes or heart attacks, or may have had sudden covid death from silent hypoxia, or they could have preferred to die at home rather in hospital. Many would not have had a good prognosis, so not appropriate for admission.

If my MiL came down with it, Mrs Foxy would not want her admitted to hospital.

They could have done. But isn't that increasingly undermined by the statistics coming from the "death certificate" counting method...? And of course the point is that either way, there isn't any attempt to find out.

And it looks ridiculous when compared with the numbers being reported by other countries. Of course we could be right and they are wrong. But it clearly undermines any attempts at 'comparative' outcomes.

Ok two wickets for the bowlers so far (not counting the run out since it doesn't get attributed to a bowler).

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

Beirut blast: Dozens dead and thousands injured, health minister says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53656220

Sadly, always seemed likely.

Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.

But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.

It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.

How is aid going to get in?

You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?

Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.

But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.

Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.

And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.

Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.

It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.

So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.

Not that Netanyahu would, because he’s a twat.

The Israeli government has already offered help:

https://twitter.com/reider/status/1290724248282169344?s=19

Fair play, I misjudged them. Happy to be proved wrong on this!

However have they said how it will get there?

Philip_Thompson said:

Ok two wickets for the bowlers so far (not counting the run out since it doesn't get attributed to a bowler).

Nice work.

Keep going...

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

Beirut blast: Dozens dead and thousands injured, health minister says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53656220

Sadly, always seemed likely.

Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.

But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.

It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.

How is aid going to get in?

You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?

Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.

But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.

Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.

And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.

Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.

It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.

So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.

Not that Netanyahu would, because he’s a twat.

The Israeli government has already offered help:

https://twitter.com/reider/status/1290724248282169344?s=19

Fair play, I misjudged them. Happy to be proved wrong on this!

However have they said how it will get there?

Across the land border that wasn't otherwise available?

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?

Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.

I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?

Why do you despise her?

When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.

Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.

That's quite enough on its own for me.

Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.

I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?

My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.

Why was there any need for a Brexit person at all? Douglas Carswell would have been a better choice not some unrepentant violence approving Communist who sided with Serbian fascists in order to epater Western elites. It is so bloody adolescent and frivolous on top of everything else. Don’t we have any self-respect left, for God’s sake! Isn’t that what Brexit - at its best - was meant to be about, at some level? Not a plaything for those playing at revolutionary politics while others get hurt?

Grrrrrr 😡

Maybe she just kissed enough a*ses? I thought that Johnson is supposed to be all about rewards for loyalty?

Excellent, pungent header.

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1290260765140611072

A chap can change his mind can't he?
Or alternatively have no fixed principles in the first place.

He gets full Marx on that score.

Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.

It was widely reported at the time of Martin McGuinness’s death that HMQ sent a private letter of condolence to his widow. Well, I bloody well hope that whoever advises her advises her to send one to John Hume’s widow too. Compared to Hume, McGuinness was a moral pygmy who was not fit to lace Hume’s shoes.

I wish we had more men of the calibre of Hume in public life. A genuinely brave man. I particularly like the story told that at the end of his life when he was suffering from dementia he still liked to go for walks along the river Foyle and people would see him and just walk with him to keep him company, to keep him safe. To be such a man, to have earned the respect and love of people at the end of your life, well, that is real achievement.

Hume was a giant of a man, who stood tall when it was both important and dangerous to do so. This is one of my favourite obituaries:

https://twitter.com/_amcintyre/status/1290239533972205568?s=09

Lovely.

I felt genuinely sad on hearing of his death. What a life, though.

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

Beirut blast: Dozens dead and thousands injured, health minister says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53656220

Sadly, always seemed likely.

Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.

But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.

It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.

How is aid going to get in?

You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?

Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.

But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.

Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.

And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.

Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.

It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.

So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.

Not that Netanyahu would, because he’s a twat.

Ah, I didn’t know that. Wouldn’t it be lovely if just this once Israel and Hezbollah could suspend hostilities and collaborate to help the poor Lebanese.

We can but dream. One day that part of the world may, God willing, get its Martin Luther King, its Mandela, Hume or Seamus Mallon or David Trimble. One day ....

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

Beirut blast: Dozens dead and thousands injured, health minister says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53656220

Sadly, always seemed likely.

Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.

But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.

It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.

How is aid going to get in?

You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?

Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.

But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.

Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.

And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.

Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.

It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.

So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.

Not that Netanyahu would, because he’s a twat.

The Israeli government has already offered help:

https://twitter.com/reider/status/1290724248282169344?s=19

Fair play, I misjudged them. Happy to be proved wrong on this!

However have they said how it will get there?

Across the land border that wasn't otherwise available?

But that would effectively mean handing it to Hezbollah.

Do you honestly think the Israelis will do that? Because pleased though I am they have offered aid to the innocent people of Beirut the idea they will help their real enemies is one I find difficult to get my head wrong.

Tripoli in the north of Lebanon has a seaport.

Bastani at the top of his game today.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1290707294343356416?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1290747812280377345

Theuniondivvie said:

Bastani at the top of his game today.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1290707294343356416?s=20

Remarkable coming from an unabashed apologist for Iran.

As well as totally wrong, of course.