Labour’s challenge with antisemitism – Corbyn gets his membership back and the problem remains – pol

rpjs said:

MikeL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MikeL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beibheirli_C said:

NickPalmer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeL said:

FPT - Re Wayne County deadlocked on certifying vote:

What happens next?

Apparently it goes up one level to the State Board of Canvassers and they do it.

Which has four member, yes? Two GoP, two Dems. Chairman is Dem, so presumably has casting vote. Gets through, no?

Right result in the end but if the officials don't accept the votes of the public then they don't believe in Democracy. That's quite bad.

No, according to the Guardian blog they have to vote 3-1 to decide it:

Republicans blocked Michigan’s largest county from certifying the results of the 3 November election on Tuesday, an alarming development that leaves wiggle room for Donald Trump in a state he lost by around 146,000 votes.

The four-member board of canvassers in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, deadlocked along partisan lines on Tuesday over certifying the election results. Joe Biden carried the county by nearly 323,000 votes. The decision essentially leaves certification up to the Michigan state board of canvassers, according to the Washington Post. The board is split along partisan lines and must approve election results with at least a 3-1 vote, according to Bridge Michigan.

And then it winds up in court in front of a judge who is peeved at having to sort out the bleeding obvious because some adults are acting like 3 year olds.

Even if they swing Michigan to Trump, he still loses the election

Ok, so there's a good chance the State Board confirms the vote anyway, but if it doesn't it goes to a judge. That judge cannot however decide what the election result should be. I wouldn't think that's within his remit. All he can do is send it back to the Canvassers and say 'You sort it out - with a rerun of the election if need be.'

The worst that is going to happen is that the Michigan ECV's are effectively void, which as you indicate won't cause the result of the election to be overturned.

I suppose the judge could perhaps say the Canvassers were not acting in good faith?

All suggests delay rather than an overturning of the Presidential election. Dammit, Biden won by 6m votes! Are they asking for civil unrest?

Why would the Republicans just pull this stunt in Michigan?

Do the same thing in a couple of other key States and bingo Trump wins.

Now hopefully the Courts would intervene to stop it but who knows? This is the USA - anything goes.

Meanwhile everyone seems to be remarkably complacent about the whole thing.

How much chance Trump has I don't know but I wouldn't dream of risking my life savings backing Biden at 1.05.

I'm too lazy to do the arith but Trump has to pull the stunt in quite a number of States because failure to certify the result does not automatically hand the ECVs to him. I don't think the situation has arisen before but I would imagine the best Trump could hope for would be a voiding of the results. If the Canvassers or the Courts tried to award the ECVs to Trump and as a result he remained in office I really do think there would be civil unrest.

I come back to my considered view that this is all a game of stalling. There must be very high stakes involved for so many people to put so much at risk.

One shudders to think what Machiavellian schemes may be unfolding.

Trump doesn't need the ECVs to be awarded to him.

All he needs is to stop Biden getting 270.

The result should be 306-232. If 37 Biden ECVs get voided then it's 269-232 - in that situation Biden does not win - it goes to the House of Representatives.

Stopping states from certifying electors is not going to win it for Trump: he has to use legal shenanigans to flip enough states that Biden won; simply suppressing them won’t be enough. The Twelfth Amendment states that the winner of the Electoral Vote must “be [by] a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” so if Trump was to somehow get Michigan’s process stalled so that its 16 electors cannot be appointed by December 14th, then Biden’s target reduces from to 270 to 263, and so on. Basically, for this trick to work, Trump would need to pull it off not just in Michigan but all of Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin too.

OK, thanks for that.

But Trump could still do it by just flipping (probably) three states if he could get State legislatures to appoint Trump electors.

Though there would then still be the possibility of the Governors of those States appointing Biden electors and then Congress having to choose between competing electors.

If that happened I think as another poster suggested the saving grace for Biden would likely be a small number of Republican Senators including Romney and Collins.

MikeL said:

rpjs said:

MikeL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MikeL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beibheirli_C said:

NickPalmer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeL said:

FPT - Re Wayne County deadlocked on certifying vote:

What happens next?

Apparently it goes up one level to the State Board of Canvassers and they do it.

Which has four member, yes? Two GoP, two Dems. Chairman is Dem, so presumably has casting vote. Gets through, no?

Right result in the end but if the officials don't accept the votes of the public then they don't believe in Democracy. That's quite bad.

No, according to the Guardian blog they have to vote 3-1 to decide it:

Republicans blocked Michigan’s largest county from certifying the results of the 3 November election on Tuesday, an alarming development that leaves wiggle room for Donald Trump in a state he lost by around 146,000 votes.

The four-member board of canvassers in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, deadlocked along partisan lines on Tuesday over certifying the election results. Joe Biden carried the county by nearly 323,000 votes. The decision essentially leaves certification up to the Michigan state board of canvassers, according to the Washington Post. The board is split along partisan lines and must approve election results with at least a 3-1 vote, according to Bridge Michigan.

And then it winds up in court in front of a judge who is peeved at having to sort out the bleeding obvious because some adults are acting like 3 year olds.

Even if they swing Michigan to Trump, he still loses the election

Ok, so there's a good chance the State Board confirms the vote anyway, but if it doesn't it goes to a judge. That judge cannot however decide what the election result should be. I wouldn't think that's within his remit. All he can do is send it back to the Canvassers and say 'You sort it out - with a rerun of the election if need be.'

The worst that is going to happen is that the Michigan ECV's are effectively void, which as you indicate won't cause the result of the election to be overturned.

I suppose the judge could perhaps say the Canvassers were not acting in good faith?

All suggests delay rather than an overturning of the Presidential election. Dammit, Biden won by 6m votes! Are they asking for civil unrest?

Why would the Republicans just pull this stunt in Michigan?

Do the same thing in a couple of other key States and bingo Trump wins.

Now hopefully the Courts would intervene to stop it but who knows? This is the USA - anything goes.

Meanwhile everyone seems to be remarkably complacent about the whole thing.

How much chance Trump has I don't know but I wouldn't dream of risking my life savings backing Biden at 1.05.

I'm too lazy to do the arith but Trump has to pull the stunt in quite a number of States because failure to certify the result does not automatically hand the ECVs to him. I don't think the situation has arisen before but I would imagine the best Trump could hope for would be a voiding of the results. If the Canvassers or the Courts tried to award the ECVs to Trump and as a result he remained in office I really do think there would be civil unrest.

I come back to my considered view that this is all a game of stalling. There must be very high stakes involved for so many people to put so much at risk.

One shudders to think what Machiavellian schemes may be unfolding.

Trump doesn't need the ECVs to be awarded to him.

All he needs is to stop Biden getting 270.

The result should be 306-232. If 37 Biden ECVs get voided then it's 269-232 - in that situation Biden does not win - it goes to the House of Representatives.

Stopping states from certifying electors is not going to win it for Trump: he has to use legal shenanigans to flip enough states that Biden won; simply suppressing them won’t be enough. The Twelfth Amendment states that the winner of the Electoral Vote must “be [by] a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” so if Trump was to somehow get Michigan’s process stalled so that its 16 electors cannot be appointed by December 14th, then Biden’s target reduces from to 270 to 263, and so on. Basically, for this trick to work, Trump would need to pull it off not just in Michigan but all of Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin too.

OK, thanks for that.

But Trump could still do it by just flipping (probably) three states if he could get State legislatures to appoint Trump electors.

Though there would then still be the possibility of the Governors of those States appointing Biden electors and then Congress having to choose between competing electors.

If that happened I think as another poster suggested the saving grace for Biden would likely be a small number of Republican Senators including Romney and Collins.

In most cases it seems like the state courts would tell their legislatures to stop dicking around.

Sandpit said:

What on Earth are the decision-makers thinking, to let Corbyn back after three weeks with a weasel-worded apology? Does SKS not want to win the next election?

He's not the decision-maker. The leader doesn't unilaterally decide who's a racist, they have to follow a procedure, and they have a procedure left over from before.

IIUC they'll then create a new procedure as a result of the EHRC recommendations, so if Corbyn plays silly buggers I'll imagine he'll get thrown out again.

Philip_Thompson said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852352787484677
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852354049957888

Not healthy that an election loser has the power to lash out like this.

Can't Twitter trust the reader to judge whether or not a statement might be disputed? I tend to assume that any statement on Twitter is disputed anyway.

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852352787484677
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852354049957888

Not healthy that an election loser has the power to lash out like this.

Can't Twitter trust the reader to judge whether or not a statement might be disputed? I tend to assume that any statement on Twitter is disputed anyway.

Mostly, yes. The place they really need this stuff is Facebook and YouTube.

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status/1328872814548557824

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status/1328872814548557824

While I tend to agree with his premise, it’s not a good look employing a non legal definition of treason when you’re calling for a prosecution.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Schools are going down like ninepins, apparently.

School attendance has plunged into chaos, headteachers have warned, as the proportion sending classes home to self-isolate has doubled in a week.

Between 18 and 20 per cent of schools sent 30 or more pupils home last week to isolate, up from 8-9 per cent the week before, according to the latest official data published by the Department for Education (DfE).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/17/school-attendance-plunges-chaos-amid-huge-rise-whole-classes/

From a thread two days ago:

ydoethur said:

Pro_Rata said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think the current government list of key workers will determine who gets the vaccine first.

Emergency workers.
Critical systems workers.
NHS Staff.
Care home staff.
Supermarket staff.
Anyone who works for a bank.

The latter one was a brilliant decision by the government.

Teachers notably absent from that list.

You've been usurped by bank workers, fairly I'd say. Sorry.

I don’t need sex. My bank fucks me every day.

But it would be bizarre to have bankers, who can work over the phone, placed ahead of teachers, who are being forced more or less at gunpoint to work in ideal transmission situations without any meaningful protection, in the queue for the vaccine.

The logic is that the country can cope, short term, with the schools being closed, it cannot cope if the financial services sector has to close for anything more than a few days.

Well, we look set to find out about how we can manage without schools in roughly another fortnight the way things are going.

There's still plenty of schooling going on in Tier 3, which I guess Staffs (isn't it?) would be approaching if that was still in place.

If lockdown is working - and from Tier 3 and Devolved Nations results, there's no reason to suppose it isn't, infection rates should turn downwards mostly everywhere towards the end of this week and into next week.

A fat lot of fine bloody use an overall fall will be if it continues rampaging through schools so we don’t have enough staff to open. Which is what is happening, regardless of what the losers and lowlifes in Whitehall may think.

Good morning, everyone.

F1: Ladbrokes special on Hulkenberg driving full time for Red Bull next year. Not backing it, but the odds are only 2.15, which makes it seem a credible possibility. Which is interesting.

https://twitter.com/EvanMcMullin/status/1328916377533521921?s=19

Not even the main story on BBC Breakfast. I reckon this has played out well for SKS. He got the good headlines looking tough, but ultimately it's out of his hands and now he avoids having to face down the unions and the left. Obviously there's no danger of any of the non-racists in the Labour PLP kicking off.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Schools are going down like ninepins, apparently.

School attendance has plunged into chaos, headteachers have warned, as the proportion sending classes home to self-isolate has doubled in a week.

Between 18 and 20 per cent of schools sent 30 or more pupils home last week to isolate, up from 8-9 per cent the week before, according to the latest official data published by the Department for Education (DfE).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/17/school-attendance-plunges-chaos-amid-huge-rise-whole-classes/

From a thread two days ago:

ydoethur said:

Pro_Rata said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think the current government list of key workers will determine who gets the vaccine first.

Emergency workers.
Critical systems workers.
NHS Staff.
Care home staff.
Supermarket staff.
Anyone who works for a bank.

The latter one was a brilliant decision by the government.

Teachers notably absent from that list.

You've been usurped by bank workers, fairly I'd say. Sorry.

I don’t need sex. My bank fucks me every day.

But it would be bizarre to have bankers, who can work over the phone, placed ahead of teachers, who are being forced more or less at gunpoint to work in ideal transmission situations without any meaningful protection, in the queue for the vaccine.

The logic is that the country can cope, short term, with the schools being closed, it cannot cope if the financial services sector has to close for anything more than a few days.

Well, we look set to find out about how we can manage without schools in roughly another fortnight the way things are going.

There's still plenty of schooling going on in Tier 3, which I guess Staffs (isn't it?) would be approaching if that was still in place.

If lockdown is working - and from Tier 3 and Devolved Nations results, there's no reason to suppose it isn't, infection rates should turn downwards mostly everywhere towards the end of this week and into next week.

A fat lot of fine bloody use an overall fall will be if it continues rampaging through schools so we don’t have enough staff to open. Which is what is happening, regardless of what the losers and lowlifes in Whitehall may think.

A key thing to remember about @DecrepiterJohnL stats is that schools vary in size and shape. Secondaries look to be bearing the brunt of this stage of the pandemic, but secondaries are actually a minority of schools - just 12% of the total, compared to 60% for primaries - so the data would actually suggest that it’s getting worse in primary schools as well.

Also remember any primary (average size, under 300 pupils) sending 30 children home is in deep, deep shit on its attendance. For a secondary, that’s barely noticeable.

But most secondaries will be sending home more than 30 children. Round here, all the schools I know of it’s in the hundreds.

But again - it’s staff going off that’s the killer. If the current trajectory isn’t at least stabilised, I can’t see how schools stay open beyond the week after next.

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

https://twitter.com/EvanMcMullin/status/1328916377533521921?s=19

Incoming on Twitter in 3...2...1

The approval was caveated by a demand the state board have to do a super special investigation to find all the voter fraud in Detroit

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Schools are going down like ninepins, apparently.

School attendance has plunged into chaos, headteachers have warned, as the proportion sending classes home to self-isolate has doubled in a week.

Between 18 and 20 per cent of schools sent 30 or more pupils home last week to isolate, up from 8-9 per cent the week before, according to the latest official data published by the Department for Education (DfE).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/17/school-attendance-plunges-chaos-amid-huge-rise-whole-classes/

From a thread two days ago:

ydoethur said:

Pro_Rata said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think the current government list of key workers will determine who gets the vaccine first.

Emergency workers.
Critical systems workers.
NHS Staff.
Care home staff.
Supermarket staff.
Anyone who works for a bank.

The latter one was a brilliant decision by the government.

Teachers notably absent from that list.

You've been usurped by bank workers, fairly I'd say. Sorry.

I don’t need sex. My bank fucks me every day.

But it would be bizarre to have bankers, who can work over the phone, placed ahead of teachers, who are being forced more or less at gunpoint to work in ideal transmission situations without any meaningful protection, in the queue for the vaccine.

The logic is that the country can cope, short term, with the schools being closed, it cannot cope if the financial services sector has to close for anything more than a few days.

Well, we look set to find out about how we can manage without schools in roughly another fortnight the way things are going.

There's still plenty of schooling going on in Tier 3, which I guess Staffs (isn't it?) would be approaching if that was still in place.

If lockdown is working - and from Tier 3 and Devolved Nations results, there's no reason to suppose it isn't, infection rates should turn downwards mostly everywhere towards the end of this week and into next week.

A fat lot of fine bloody use an overall fall will be if it continues rampaging through schools so we don’t have enough staff to open. Which is what is happening, regardless of what the losers and lowlifes in Whitehall may think.

Tell us, is it true positives or false positives 'rampaging' through schools?

This has turned into an epidemic of bad science with the trusted figures being mostly those from the ONS, KCL, CEBM or other institutions unconnected to the government.

From 6 weeks ago
https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

The different testing method now being used in Liverpool reportedly shows a much lower rate of infection. Yeadon said he suspects accidental contamination of some PCR samples.

Funny if it were a TV comedy, 'Carry on Corona'; not so funny when peoples' livelihoods are being destroyed ... I'm talking about for instance the 10% of businesses that closed in late spring, never to reopen and people who are dying in care homes because they haven't seen their loved ones for 3-6 months.

https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1328963785281974274

This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/

How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?

I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.

Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.

AlwaysSinging said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1328963785281974274

Ha. I think this is a pretty good illustration of the numeracy of Toby Young, and why his website should be disregarded.

--AS

That's the mystery though. Why are there some people who can be so wrong, so many times, and yet don't have their credibility destroyed, but are still listened to, over and over again?

tlg86 said:

Not even the main story on BBC Breakfast. I reckon this has played out well for SKS. He got the good headlines looking tough, but ultimately it's out of his hands and now he avoids having to face down the unions and the left. Obviously there's no danger of any of the non-racists in the Labour PLP kicking off.

Exactly, and that is why the lead is wrong. Politically, KS got what he needed from the episode. Expelling someone simply for commenting on the previous allegations wouldn’t have been sound and, given Corbyn’s devotion to Labour, would have gone through every appeal stage and probably ended in the courts, and then lost. Which would have been a terrible story all round.

As it is, Corbyn knows he is on a last warning. If he engages in primary antisemitism (which he didn’t, this time) he knows he is out. Job done.

Alistair said:

He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.

It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?

It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.

JohnLilburne said:

Alistair said:

rural_voter said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Schools are going down like ninepins, apparently.

School attendance has plunged into chaos, headteachers have warned, as the proportion sending classes home to self-isolate has doubled in a week.

Between 18 and 20 per cent of schools sent 30 or more pupils home last week to isolate, up from 8-9 per cent the week before, according to the latest official data published by the Department for Education (DfE).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/17/school-attendance-plunges-chaos-amid-huge-rise-whole-classes/

From a thread two days ago:

ydoethur said:

Pro_Rata said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think the current government list of key workers will determine who gets the vaccine first.

Emergency workers.
Critical systems workers.
NHS Staff.
Care home staff.
Supermarket staff.
Anyone who works for a bank.

The latter one was a brilliant decision by the government.

Teachers notably absent from that list.

You've been usurped by bank workers, fairly I'd say. Sorry.

I don’t need sex. My bank fucks me every day.

But it would be bizarre to have bankers, who can work over the phone, placed ahead of teachers, who are being forced more or less at gunpoint to work in ideal transmission situations without any meaningful protection, in the queue for the vaccine.

The logic is that the country can cope, short term, with the schools being closed, it cannot cope if the financial services sector has to close for anything more than a few days.

Well, we look set to find out about how we can manage without schools in roughly another fortnight the way things are going.

There's still plenty of schooling going on in Tier 3, which I guess Staffs (isn't it?) would be approaching if that was still in place.

If lockdown is working - and from Tier 3 and Devolved Nations results, there's no reason to suppose it isn't, infection rates should turn downwards mostly everywhere towards the end of this week and into next week.

A fat lot of fine bloody use an overall fall will be if it continues rampaging through schools so we don’t have enough staff to open. Which is what is happening, regardless of what the losers and lowlifes in Whitehall may think.

Tell us, is it true positives or false positives 'rampaging' through schools?

This has turned into an epidemic of bad science with the trusted figures being mostly those from the ONS, KCL, CEBM or other institutions unconnected to the government.

From 6 weeks ago
https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

The different testing method now being used in Liverpool reportedly shows a much lower rate of infection. Yeadon said he suspects accidental contamination of some PCR samples.

Funny if it were a TV comedy, 'Carry on Corona'; not so funny when peoples' livelihoods are being destroyed ... I'm talking about for instance the 10% of businesses that closed in late spring, never to reopen and people who are dying in care homes because they haven't seen their loved ones for 3-6 months.

JFC!

We know due to data from August and September that the rise in cases isn't false positives. We know this because when there was a MASSSIVE spike in testing coinciding with the start of school there was no MASSIVE spike in cases.

If false positives are the reason for rising cases then we should have see a spike in positive cases to match the increased testing when school started. We didn't. So it isn't.

That's it. End of message.

PCR is too sensitive, it picks up bits of viral RNA in people no longer infectious. But that rate is probably fairly constant so the recent increase in cases is real.

Yeadon suspects that procedures are becoming less careful as testing is scaled up, up ... and up ... and that accuracy may have declined compared to summer, let alone spring. He said that he'd like to see hospital patients with a positive COVID PCR test given the new test ASAP.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1328966168430981124

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1328969489992593409

tlg86 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/

How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?

I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.

Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.

I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.

The cult - including major unions like Unite - haven't gone quiet since Jezbollah stepped down so they're unlikely to do so now He has been Cleared of All Wrongdoing. Nor will the media want to ignore such a marvellous and long-legged story.

Bringing the Party into Disrepute. That's what they needed to deploy against Corbyn and his acolytes. Force the cult to deny that an EHRC investigation and guilty findings bring the party into disrepute. That egregious GDPR breeches bring the party into disrepute. That libel against former staffers and a journalist whistleblowing against you brings the party into disrepute. And then boot ALL of them out.

Instead we have this. They have been vilified. Solidified. Vindicated. And they will draw strength from the experience. Its a disgrace.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/18/boris-the-menace-beano-to-publish-first-comic-for-grownups

Especially for @DavidL [given his Dundonian location, if anyone wonders].

isam said:

If Starmer isn’t careful he could end up with a Labour version of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Muslim Labour have a survey which says they feel as discriminated as Jewish people do by Labour. Jezza’s gang will latch on to this sooner or later. Some MPs already have. So he probably has no choice but to try and keep a broad church that doubles up as a mosque and synagogue else risk losing inner city seats

Which is the fundamental problem with sectionalism vs a melting pot approach

tlg86 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/

How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?

I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.

Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.

I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.

Another reason why KS has got the ideal result. In which scenario is Corbyn likely to create the most bother and get the most attention - as a Labour backbencher with a dagger hanging over his head, or as an Independent MP sitting right behind them and free to say and do whatever he likes?

IanB2 said:

tlg86 said:

Not even the main story on BBC Breakfast. I reckon this has played out well for SKS. He got the good headlines looking tough, but ultimately it's out of his hands and now he avoids having to face down the unions and the left. Obviously there's no danger of any of the non-racists in the Labour PLP kicking off.

Exactly, and that is why the lead is wrong. Politically, KS got what he needed from the episode. Expelling someone simply for commenting on the previous allegations wouldn’t have been sound and, given Corbyn’s devotion to Labour, would have gone through every appeal stage and probably ended in the courts, and then lost. Which would have been a terrible story all round.

As it is, Corbyn knows he is on a last warning. If he engages in primary antisemitism (which he didn’t, this time) he knows he is out. Job done.

Yes I think that's right. Politically all this has to do is show Starmer is on the right side and is doing everything within his power. That's the only takeaway from this.

Corbyn is yesterday's man. That the party has allowed him to crawl back in as a nonentity wont bother anyone other than those with a personal animus. Keeping Starmer's name in the news for doing the right thing is never a negative when most people's attention is elsewhere.

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

There was a time when people were literally dying for want of PPE. Of course the government cut corners to get all that they could. Of course some of what they bought turned out to be crap. Of course they contacted businesses that they knew who they thought could help immediately. Of course some of those businesses might have profiteered from that. So what? People were dying FFS.

I cannot imagine how many hundred retweets we would have had from Scott if "People are dying because this Government cannot procure PPE". But they did, so the hypocritical bastards were robbed of making political point-scoring off that route.

We have spent in excess of £200 billion on Covid. Yet people want to say we shouldn't have paid those going crazy market rates, where we were literally competing against the rest of the world? The rounding error on the rounding error of Covid. Procure it, money no object was an entirely satisfactory outcome as far as I'm concerned. Some middlemen made some money? If you don't like that, go live on another planet. "French safe as our cheapskate Government won't pay going rates to save our NHS workers" would have been a REALLY juicy retweet, eh Scott?

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.

It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?

It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.

A variant MERS epidemic with that disease's fatality rate of 20-30%, is certainly possible. We grumble about lockdown, but the public health response to that spreading widely would have been something else - the full army checkpoint in your village treatment wherever it arose even in an isolated case.

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.

It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?

It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.

You're mistaken here David. The fatality rate for the whole population cannot be known until everyone has been exposed to the disease. Young's tweet is not 'badly phrased', it just plain wrong.

Black Death was of course a whole different order of catastrophe but the estimated 30-60% fatality rate is based on it's effect across the whole population.

That's why I phrased it in the present tense. I would expect us to exceed 0.1% within a few months, possibly even 0.2% ultimately. I am not defending Toby, the man's an idiot. I was making a rather different point about the scale of the disaster we are facing. The number of deaths under 65 remain very small, the preponderance of death is over 80 and yet we have wreaked our economy, our young peoples' education and so many businesses. However resilient society was in the Middle Ages ours has proven remarkably vulnerable to what is in fact a very modest ripple in the normal death rate.

Politicians feel a desperate need to be seen to do something. Nicola was a particularly poor example yesterday. After 3 weeks when the infection rate in Glasgow exceeded 300 in 100k she took severe action after a week when it had been below because the death rate (lagging of course) was climbing.

I understand the pressures but just maybe this hyperactivity is not in fact the answer?

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

...

Not create a separate fast track lane for friends of ministers, perhaps ?

It's entirely understandable that all this was done in an extreme rush, and mistakes were inevitable - but it's hard to see that as anything other than either stupidity or corruption, particularly when those friends of ministers don't seem (to be extremely generous) to have been unusually proficient compared to anyone else in delivering usable product.

Have you forgotten already the Labour Party pushing a list of suppliers they said the Government should be speaking to?

What is wrong with Ministers doing the same?

If there is a cronic shortage and a company that could supply millions of items manages to speak to a Minister and say "we have millions of what you need available" then should the Minister sit on that and ignore it?

IanB2 said:

tlg86 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/

How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?

I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.

Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.

I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.

Another reason why KS has got the ideal result. In which scenario is Corbyn likely to create the most bother and get the most attention - as a Labour backbencher with a dagger hanging over his head, or as an Independent MP sitting right behind them and free to say and do whatever he likes?

His authority has been compromised in his own party, he is now the frontman for a left wing executive.

Sir Keir Sockpuppet

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/ppe-suppliers-with-political-ties-given-high-priority-status-report-reveals

NerysHughes said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

Compare the cost of hand sanitiser now compared to April. Its about a fifth of the price. PPE in April was like gold, it was always going to be expensive. At least the Government have now created local supply chains for the majority of it and there doesn't seem to be any shortages in hospitals.

Indeed. The first box of face masks I bought back in March were £30 for 50, now they’re less than £2 for 50.

Who knew that supply and demand works very clearly during an emergency, and that throwing procurement rules out of the window is a positive, rather than a negative thing to do at the time.

Peter_the_Punter said:

MikeL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MikeL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beibheirli_C said:

NickPalmer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeL said:

FPT - Re Wayne County deadlocked on certifying vote:

What happens next?

Apparently it goes up one level to the State Board of Canvassers and they do it.

Which has four member, yes? Two GoP, two Dems. Chairman is Dem, so presumably has casting vote. Gets through, no?

Right result in the end but if the officials don't accept the votes of the public then they don't believe in Democracy. That's quite bad.

No, according to the Guardian blog they have to vote 3-1 to decide it:

Republicans blocked Michigan’s largest county from certifying the results of the 3 November election on Tuesday, an alarming development that leaves wiggle room for Donald Trump in a state he lost by around 146,000 votes.

The four-member board of canvassers in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, deadlocked along partisan lines on Tuesday over certifying the election results. Joe Biden carried the county by nearly 323,000 votes. The decision essentially leaves certification up to the Michigan state board of canvassers, according to the Washington Post. The board is split along partisan lines and must approve election results with at least a 3-1 vote, according to Bridge Michigan.

And then it winds up in court in front of a judge who is peeved at having to sort out the bleeding obvious because some adults are acting like 3 year olds.

Even if they swing Michigan to Trump, he still loses the election

Ok, so there's a good chance the State Board confirms the vote anyway, but if it doesn't it goes to a judge. That judge cannot however decide what the election result should be. I wouldn't think that's within his remit. All he can do is send it back to the Canvassers and say 'You sort it out - with a rerun of the election if need be.'

The worst that is going to happen is that the Michigan ECV's are effectively void, which as you indicate won't cause the result of the election to be overturned.

I suppose the judge could perhaps say the Canvassers were not acting in good faith?

All suggests delay rather than an overturning of the Presidential election. Dammit, Biden won by 6m votes! Are they asking for civil unrest?

Why would the Republicans just pull this stunt in Michigan?

Do the same thing in a couple of other key States and bingo Trump wins.

Now hopefully the Courts would intervene to stop it but who knows? This is the USA - anything goes.

Meanwhile everyone seems to be remarkably complacent about the whole thing.

How much chance Trump has I don't know but I wouldn't dream of risking my life savings backing Biden at 1.05.

I'm too lazy to do the arith but Trump has to pull the stunt in quite a number of States because failure to certify the result does not automatically hand the ECVs to him. I don't think the situation has arisen before but I would imagine the best Trump could hope for would be a voiding of the results. If the Canvassers or the Courts tried to award the ECVs to Trump and as a result he remained in office I really do think there would be civil unrest.

I come back to my considered view that this is all a game of stalling. There must be very high stakes involved for so many people to put so much at risk.

One shudders to think what Machiavellian schemes may be unfolding.

Trump doesn't need the ECVs to be awarded to him.

All he needs is to stop Biden getting 270.

The result should be 306-232. If 37 Biden ECVs get voided then it's 269-232 - in that situation Biden does not win - it goes to the House of Representatives.

The House? That has a Dem majority.

But I think by that time it would be getting pretty frisky on the streets.

Even with that weird state block voting thing?

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/alizaslav/status/1328797096703561730?s=21

Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.

Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?

You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.

What has he got on them?

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/alizaslav/status/1328797096703561730?s=21

Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.

Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?

You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.

What has he got on them?

Fanatical primary voters.

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/ppe-suppliers-with-political-ties-given-high-priority-status-report-reveals

There’s no dates or timelines mentioned in that whole article, except for a contract given to a social media company who started work in March but didn’t get their contract signed until May.

I just don’t think it’s particularly unreasonable that, when faced with a war or pandemic, the usual processes go out of the window to be replaced with the government asking if anyone knows anyone who can get this stuff?

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/alizaslav/status/1328797096703561730?s=21

Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.

Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?

You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.

What has he got on them?

Their voters.

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Michigan's largest county certifies election results after Republicans earlier blocked certification
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/michigan-detroit-election-results/index.html

Coup averted!

I looked on Wikipedia earlier trying to find a shittier coup d'état attempt than this one and I came up short, but I guess some of them are too shitty to make the history books.

How about Mad Mike and the Seychelles Affair? IIRC the coup was uncovered when one of the soldiers accidentally stood in the “something to declare line” at customs and the customs officer found he was carrying a bag full of automatic weapons

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.

It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?

It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.

You're mistaken here David. The fatality rate for the whole population cannot be known until everyone has been exposed to the disease. Young's tweet is not 'badly phrased', it just plain wrong.

Black Death was of course a whole different order of catastrophe but the estimated 30-60% fatality rate is based on it's effect across the whole population.

That's why I phrased it in the present tense. I would expect us to exceed 0.1% within a few months, possibly even 0.2% ultimately. I am not defending Toby, the man's an idiot. I was making a rather different point about the scale of the disaster we are facing. The number of deaths under 65 remain very small, the preponderance of death is over 80 and yet we have wreaked our economy, our young peoples' education and so many businesses. However resilient society was in the Middle Ages ours has proven remarkably vulnerable to what is in fact a very modest ripple in the normal death rate.

Politicians feel a desperate need to be seen to do something. Nicola was a particularly poor example yesterday. After 3 weeks when the infection rate in Glasgow exceeded 300 in 100k she took severe action after a week when it had been below because the death rate (lagging of course) was climbing.

I understand the pressures but just maybe this hyperactivity is not in fact the answer?

What is the alternative? Letting it rip would put the NHS out of commission for everything including C19 unless you flat out refused to treat anyone with it. I’m not sure of the proportion, but I expect the IFR of about 1% is only possible with best treatment: there are a lot more sick people who would die without it.

There's not an easy answer. Maybe the Nightingale hospitals were the right approach after all.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/ppe-suppliers-with-political-ties-given-high-priority-status-report-reveals

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?

Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?

I suspect you're both right. Yes, a number of people made a quick, dirty and very large profit out of supplying PPE in the early days, and I've no doubt people in high places contacted their friends 'to see if they could help'. Panic stations; that's what people do!

However if, when the initial panic had subsided due diligence was still not being performed, then that's an entirely different matter.
And if some of those contacted took the money and ran, i.e supplied nothing, or what they did supply was unusable, the Government should try to get least some of the money back.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/ppe-suppliers-with-political-ties-given-high-priority-status-report-reveals

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?

Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?

Things were certainly very tight in April. Our procurements team were sometimes driving all night in their own vehicles to get enough PPE for the morning shifts. At the moment supplies seem OK. We have several days supply in our stockroom.

So, yes in April desperate measures were needed. That doesn't mean that the profiteering of the well connected should be ignored after the event, and it is certainly possible to have more normal procurement now.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/alizaslav/status/1328797096703561730?s=21

Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.

Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?

You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.

What has he got on them?

In the case of Senators, who are relatively insulated from political pressure (though Graham, of course, was up for election this year), it's hard to say.
But otherwise, it's pretty evident that they were firstly shellshocked by his original victory, and then intimidated by the repeated demonstrations of his ability to appeal to the Republican selectorate to get rid of dissidents by way of primaries.

Of course such ability was greatly exaggerated, especially had there been an early and concerted effort to stand up to him, but evidently, most Republican politicians have a streak of the craven, and there was no such concerted effort.

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1328957324329889794

This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?

Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?

Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/ppe-suppliers-with-political-ties-given-high-priority-status-report-reveals

So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?