Would the real Keir Starmer please stand up? – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1332984443791925248

Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities

algarkirk said:

Interesting article. A couple of points.

SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.

SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.

At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.

To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.

Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.

I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.

The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1332984443791925248

Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities

He's a degenerate and security risk.

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

Oh God, Johnson's going to have to take a decision over which one of them to deploy.

He really isn't. That'll be up to the NHS.

LOL, the cult can be funny at times. Boris will tell his monkey what to do and Hancock will order the NHS accordingly.

You think that the NHS won't be deciding how to use their own vaccine portfolio?

glw said:

algarkirk said:

Interesting article. A couple of points.

SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.

SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.

At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.

To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.

Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.

I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.

The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.

An excellent post, and I share your views about Labour.

Blair's cabinet in 1997 had loads of talented politicians. Cunningham, Cook, Mowlem, Brown, Straw, Blunket, Reid, Short, Darling and more. It was like looking at the benches of a top Premier League team and seeing multiple £50 million signings ready to come on.

Given how utterly rubbish Boris is at being PM, and the lack of talent in the Cabinet, and the idiots on the Tory backbenches making trouble it is quite striking how well they are still doing in the polls. It can only be because the public look at Labour and think "they wouldn't be any better".

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.

The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.

The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.

OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.

So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.

Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.

I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.

There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.

Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.

I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.

Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.

Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:

Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.

Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).

Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.

Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!

Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.

Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.

Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.

Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.

Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.

This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.

You’re right, some of them did indeed vote for the May deal. I did think Clarke voted against it though.

YBarddCwsc said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.

The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.

But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.

Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.

HYUFD said:

glw said:

algarkirk said:

Interesting article. A couple of points.

SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.

SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.

At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.

To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.

Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.

I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.

The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.

An excellent post, and I share your views about Labour.

Blair's cabinet in 1997 had loads of talented politicians. Cunningham, Cook, Mowlem, Brown, Straw, Blunket, Reid, Short, Darling and more. It was like looking at the benches of a top Premier League team and seeing multiple £50 million signings ready to come on.

Given how utterly rubbish Boris is at being PM, and the lack of talent in the Cabinet, and the idiots on the Tory backbenches making trouble it is quite striking how well they are still doing in the polls. It can only be because the public look at Labour and think "they wouldn't be any better".

The conservative coalition is made up now of people who are cultural conservatives ie socially conservative, pro Brexit working class voters not just the well off, they are more ideologically committed to the party

Stocky said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:

1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.

2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...

3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative

I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.

Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.

OldKingCole said:

Stocky said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:

1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.

2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...

3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative

I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.

Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.

The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333000948004904962?s=20

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.

The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.

But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.

Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.

Latest Irish poll FG 33 SF 30 FF 12.

Latest UK poll Lab 38 Cons 37

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40098056.html

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1332812271026843648?s=20

So Starmer's Labour is still polling better than both SF and FG are doing let alone FF

You need to look at changes since the Irish GE.

Irish GE (9 Feb 2020) SF 24.5 FF 22.2 FG 20.9

Now (Red C, 25 Nov 2020) SF 30 FF 12 FG 33

Changes are SF UP 5.5, FG UP 12.1 .... and FF DOWN 10.2

(Of course, in a 2 party system, each individual party will have a higher percentage than in a 3 party system).

Anyhow, I have got things to do, so I am not going to waste my time arguing with you ... and you have things to do, Generalissimo.

Wales and Scotland won't get invaded if you just sit on your arse posting on pb.com.

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333000948004904962?s=20

How on earth is Winston Churchill second in post 1945 PMs? His administration in the 1950s was not much short of a disaster. I can only presume that ignorance of history is such that a significant number of respondents did not appreciate that his finest hour was some year previous.

I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.

IshmaelZ said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.

Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.

Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.

I’m sure his renowned fidelity and loyalty to his many women will make him do exactly what she wishes.

"Access to the leavers of power" is brilliant.

noneoftheabove said:

OldKingCole said:

Stocky said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:

1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.

2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...

3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative

I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.

Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.

The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.

As a centrist I feel their challenge is so big that the centre is best served by them disbanding.

MaxPB said:

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.

It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1332984443791925248

Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities

He's a degenerate and security risk.

Sounds like he'll fit right in.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

It is certainly true that Boris could be doing a lot worse. I am slightly surprised, after so many unforced Boris gaffes and errors, that Labour are not well ahead.

The Irish Taoiseach has presided over a collapse in Fianna Fail's polling, which has halved since the February GE, with FF haemorrhaging support to SF and FG.

But then both Sinn Fein & Fine Gael have chosen livelier, more photogenic leaders than the jolly old UK Labour Party.

Just visually, SKS looks like a 1970s East European dictator who has delivered a speech on tractor statistics.

Latest Irish poll FG 33 SF 30 FF 12.

Latest UK poll Lab 38 Cons 37

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40098056.html

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1332812271026843648?s=20

So Starmer's Labour is still polling better than both SF and FG are doing let alone FF

...but then so is Johnson.

Early days yet. Massive potential polling boost for Boris' vaccine, followed by disappointment that roll-out takes time, and Covid restrictions continue well into next year. Then, when Philip Thompson's "v" shaped recovery fails to materialise the Conservatives are in trouble.

Starmer may have the charisma of John Major, but don't forget John Major won an election.

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.

It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.

Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

As above.

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1332978315095908354?s=20

So who are the 3 jokers? Boris plus 2?
Blair and Gladwin two of the aces, who are the others? Churchill?

I am not familiar with Mr Gladwin's administration, which is surprising given how capable he clearly was. I would have guessed Lloyd George and Thatcher given who created it.

Three jokers - Goderich, Brown, Johnson.

Edit - I would never have dared make Pitt the Younger the queen. But Dale might get away with it...

The other aces were Churchill and Walpole. Thatcher and May were queens as well.

ydoethur said:

David Prowse has died:

Dave Prowse: Darth Vader actor dies aged 85
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55117704

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333000948004904962?s=20

Chris said:

OldKingCole said:

Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.

According to the Complete Peerage article "Rayleigh of Terling Place", Joseph Holden Strutt wrote in a posthumous letter to his daughters that he was offered a peerage but he had "through life declined personal honours" and requested it to be granted to his wife. He added that he had since repented of this decision: "I wished honor to my family, but I find it should have been in my own person."

The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.

Chris said:

OldKingCole said:

Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.

According to the Complete Peerage article "Rayleigh of Terling Place", Joseph Holden Strutt wrote in a posthumous letter to his daughters that he was offered a peerage but he had "through life declined personal honours" and requested it to be granted to his wife. He added that he had since repented of this decision: "I wished honor to my family, but I find it should have been in my own person."

The same article says Strutt had no particular connection with Rayleigh, and quotes a previous suggestion that the title was chosen because the name was "euphonious", but adds that it was more likely because of its historical associations, the castle having been one of the oldest in England and the caput of the 12th-century Honor of Rayleigh.

nichomar said:

• 
  

noneoftheabove said:

OldKingCole said:

Stocky said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:

1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.

2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...

3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative

I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.

Oh, the open goals for the liberals! If only we LDs were up to it. I regret that we aren`t - though to be fair it`s difficult to get attention when you only have a few MPs.

The LD's problem is not the few MP's so much as that they are no longer the Third Party. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel had no trouble making their voices heard because they were 'called' in the House after the Conservative and Labour leaders had been. Nowadays the next one 'called' is Blackford.

As a centrist I feel their challenge is so big that the centre is best served by them disbanding.

We had this debate yesterday with you starting it the same way no point disbanding there’s no where to go to.

MaxPB said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.

It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.

Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

As above.

Well we don't really know what the post-COVID economy looks like, if we get to 2024 with the economy growing and above where we end 2020 I think most people will consider that as a success and give the government credit for getting us back to health. You can't judge a post-COVID economy until we actually get there and part of that is vaccine roll out where we seem very well placed, the faster we roll the vaccine out to all age groups the faster we can reopen hospitality, tourism and venue based business such as conferences and sports.

One of the reasons the reasons England is in the running to host Euro 2020/21 is because the government thinks we can have the nation basically all vaccinated by then and allow full crowds at venues rather than empty or mostly empty stadiums that UEFA are planning on with the "festival of football" thing they're talking about. At the moment a lot of it hasn't been factored into the numbers.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting insight into the challenges of transporting the Pfizer vaccine:

https://twitter.com/BrianSumers/status/1332765684363788288?s=20

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1332984443791925248

Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities

He's a degenerate and security risk.

He is neither

Ok.

https://twitter.com/raymonddelauney/status/1076888186188713984

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IshmaelZ said:

IanB2 said:

Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.

Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.

My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).

We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.

Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.

Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333000948004904962?s=20

How on earth is Winston Churchill second in post 1945 PMs? His administration in the 1950s was not much short of a disaster. I can only presume that ignorance of history is such that a significant number of respondents did not appreciate that his finest hour was some year previous.

I remember the cartoon when Thatcher was removed which showed a part of her handbag and feet passing through midgets as she left the stage. It was definitely time (past time) really for her to go but she was indeed a giant.

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.

The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.

The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.

OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.

So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.

Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.

I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.

There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.

Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.

I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.

Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.

Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:

Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.

Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).

Foxy said:

Scott_xP said:

Stuartinromford said:

Do we just end up with a four year zombie lemming march to the mother of all defeats? Major on sedatives?

We are practically there already.

BoZo's bulletproof majority is built on sand. He is constantly reversing positions to try and stay in power.

Cummings departure seems to have derailed the entire agenda.

What exactly is a BoZo Government for?

(Apart from Brexit obviously, which is still giant omnishambles, even if he capitulates on a deal)

That is why the emphasis is on the Culture War bollocks. BoZo and the Conservatives have nothing else left.

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

It does seem a bit mental to judge the government on post-COVID economy when no one is really there yet.

It's also reasonable to point out that ONS GDP figures aren't comparable to EU GDP figures because of how the ONS counts public sector GDP output as output rather than input with a multiplier as it is in Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

I think on the like for like comparison using a French style input multiplier UK GDP is at about -8% rather than -11%, still not great though.

Historical evidence suggests that the Government of the day will take the blame for economic fallout from significant disasters. It may not be their fault but that is a disadvantage of incumbency.

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.

Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.

Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.

0/25 for post-Covid economic performance?

'No, Mexicanpete, no:
Not even the first of the Britons can learn
His British history in the future tense.
Not even to serve your political turn;
Hindsight as foresight makes no sense.'

As above.

Well we don't really know what the post-COVID economy looks like, if we get to 2024 with the economy growing and above where we end 2020 I think most people will consider that as a success and give the government credit for getting us back to health. You can't judge a post-COVID economy until we actually get there and part of that is vaccine roll out where we seem very well placed, the faster we roll the vaccine out to all age groups the faster we can reopen hospitality, tourism and venue based business such as conferences and sports.

One of the reasons the reasons England is in the running to host Euro 2020/21 is because the government thinks we can have the nation basically all vaccinated by then and allow full crowds at venues rather than empty or mostly empty stadiums that UEFA are planning on with the "festival of football" thing they're talking about. At the moment a lot of it hasn't been factored into the numbers.

What did we learn from the 2008 crash? It was generally considered that under the circumstances Brown and Darling handled the run on the banks as well as they could. The voters disagreed.

I am not pointing the finger at you Max. However, I find the earnest blind-faith optimism displayed by the.Boris /Brexit faithful that Brexit and Covid will have no more than the impact of an economic flesh-wound, as quite charming, in a concerned kind of a way.

In all fairness to Sunak, he has already smelled the coffee.

RobD said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

On topic...

Starmer's lack-of-principle problem is exemplified by today's BBC story that "Labour" (doesn't say exactly who) have called for the suspension of peak time rail fares before Christmas. Anyone with a brain understands that differential fares are designed to smooth out demand throughout the day and optimise return on fixed investment. Only Labour seems to believe that by abolishing peak fares travel chaos will be "avoided".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55118891

Do they understand market economics?

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1332973447924899840?s=20

Oh God, Johnson's going to have to take a decision over which one of them to deploy.

He really isn't. That'll be up to the NHS.

LOL, the cult can be funny at times. Boris will tell his monkey what to do and Hancock will order the NHS accordingly.

You think that the NHS won't be deciding how to use their own vaccine portfolio?

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1332989506417471492

https://twitter.com/greg_jenner/status/1332860858972692489

I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IshmaelZ said:

IanB2 said:

Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.

Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.

My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).

We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.

Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.

Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.

It's really appalling. One of the areas one would expect to really strengthen in the NHS due to Covid is effective cleaning systems.

Sorry to hear of your loss kjh.

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1332984443791925248

Why not? I campaigned with Brooks in Braintree in 2001 and he is an intelligent man with significant private sector experience, he lost his position as an MP but no reason he cannot have more to contribute because of one error of judgement, he has also done a lot of good work with homeless charities

He's a degenerate and security risk.

He is neither

Ok.

https://twitter.com/raymonddelauney/status/1076888186188713984

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This is going to screw up a few networks isn't it?

Huawei 5G ban brought forward to September.

New cut-off date is much earlier than expected and will further test relations between London and Beijing

New Huawei equipment in the UK's new 5G network will be banned from September, the Government will announce on Monday, in a fresh crackdown on the Chinese company.

Culture secretary Oliver Dowden is expected to surprise the House of Commons by announcing a new firm date after which installation of Huawei equipment in 5G will no longer be permitted.

The new cut-off date - September 2021 - is much earlier than was anticipated and will further test relations between London and Beijing.

In July Mr Dowden spoke about setting an "irreversible path" to remove Huawei by the time of the next election when the UK decided to force Chinese company Huawei out of its nascent 5G mobile network.

Ministers are keen to ensure that by the next election there is minimal Huawei kit remaining in 5G networks, which will have to be completely removed by the end of 2027 by law.

A ban on purchasing new Huawei equipment at the end of this year has already been announced, but there were fears companies could stockpile kit and install it later.

An "end of installation" date next year is expected to have a chilling effect on new purchases and remove any incentive to do this.

The new Telecommunications Security Bill, which has its second reading in the Commons on Monday, will put into law the decision to ban on purchasing new Huawei 5G kit by the end of this year and the requirement that Huawei kit must be completely removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027.

It will be accompanied by measures to encourage more suppliers to enter the market and replace Huawei, and the development of new technologies that open up the 5G market.

A government source told The Telegraph: "This new ‘end of installation’ date shows we are serious and sets out an irreversible pathway to Huawei's removal from Britain’s 5G networks. Now the companies need to get on with it."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/28/huawei-5g-ban-brought-forward-september/

It's a good idea. The old deadline was a joke and BT and Three were talking about stockpiling Huawei equipment. This takes that route away from them and makes them spend the money on a long term solution. Three in particular will struggle though.

I don't think consumers have quite twigged that this Huawei ban really screws EE.

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1332989506417471492

https://twitter.com/greg_jenner/status/1332860858972692489

I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.

TrèsDifficile said:

ydoethur said:

David Prowse has died:

Dave Prowse: Darth Vader actor dies aged 85
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55117704

Vader would have been so funny with his accent..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSm9DDxQv8E

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1332989506417471492

https://twitter.com/greg_jenner/status/1332860858972692489

I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.

Do you mean the screenwriter or the tweets?

I mean Oliver Dowden.

kle4 said:

I really don't know why someone would write something that makes them look so foolish.