Leader and government approval ratings and voting intention as a guide to general election results –

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rottenborough said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1362441228097368065?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1362441488781766656?s=20

So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.

Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

Let me try and help.

1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

Is there perhaps an argument for scrapping the second Pfizer dose altogether ?

turbotubbs said:

DougSeal said:

turbotubbs said:

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Malmesbury said:

DougSeal said:

Malmesbury said:

Age related data

The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...

Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...

COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.

Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.

See the local area case data...

Any prisons round there?

Good point - there is one at Erlestoke that might fall into that area.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

Is there perhaps an argument for scrapping the second Pfizer dose altogether ?

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rottenborough said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1362441228097368065?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1362441488781766656?s=20

So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.

Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

Let me try and help.

1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.

Yes. It isn't the same with SP committees. I don't know why, but they have considerably less power than WM ones.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

In the years leading up to the 2015 general election, Ed Miliband was always miles behind David Cameron in approval ratings, even when Labour were slightly ahead or (eventually) level pegging in the polls. Yet no-one was arguing that this meant that the Conservatives were going to win the 2015 election by a landslide (and they didn't). However, there was an argument made that Miliband's ratings were so poor that a minimal Labour lead in the polls might in fact be understating the strength of the Conservative position.

The question is - is looking at leadership polling in combination with raw opinion poll lead likely to give you a better idea of an outcome of a general election than just looking at the raw opinion poll lead alone. I think it does, but Fishing's analysis isn't specified to test this.

It would be interesting to see the result if Fishing repeated the analysis with the gross or net "PM leader over Opp leader approval" margin AVERAGED in combination (either 1:1 or in a different ratio) with the "Gvt opinion poll lead". Would it give an improvement on the R squared than that obtained for the "Gvt opinion poll lead" alone?

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

Is there perhaps an argument for scrapping the second Pfizer dose altogether ?

Pro_Rata said:

We are now, albeit very weakly, at the way round I expected the data to be once vaccination started to take hold, namely:

Deaths falling faster than Hospitalisations
Hospitalisations falling faster than Cases

Given that deaths lag, it has more typically been the other way round on downswings until now.

I'd expect the gaps to widen as we go along and the fall in deaths to further outstrip other measures as we continue.

I have sympathy, this time, with Contrarian's view that Cases could soon become a poor arbiter of what we should do and how hard we should lockdown. Not yet, but soon.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting, London is lowest across the board (could partly be a function of ONS population estimates being out):

https://twitter.com/RichardClegg522/status/1362458799714562048?s=20

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's probably a bad idea and could potentially stoke up racial tensions, but I had a mad idea for a videa to promote BAME take-up of vaccination.

Start with news stories about rich and powerful people jumping the queue (like that casino owner who flew to the Yukon to pretend to be a native American to get the vaccine earlier, or politicians in some countries making sure they get vaccinated first).

Then have BAME people saying:

- "No, let some rich white guy have mine; I'll just go to the back of the queue."
- "No, I've fallen for the propaganda online that's meant to turn me off this, so someone richer can get further up the queue"
- "No, we shouldn't forget those poor white millionaires who want theirs sooner."
- "It's fine, I'll take my chance with slowly choking to death."

Finishing with a trusted BAME celebrity saying: "If you want to fall for it and give up your place in line, that's up to you. Me, well, when it's my turn - without jumping the queue - anyone gets in my way and they'll have footprints on them."

And words written on it: "Take what's yours. Take your shot."

Just update the Don't Die Of Ignorance AIDS campaign.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pro_Rata said:

We are now, albeit very weakly, at the way round I expected the data to be once vaccination started to take hold, namely:

Deaths falling faster than Hospitalisations
Hospitalisations falling faster than Cases

Given that deaths lag, it has more typically been the other way round on downswings until now.

I'd expect the gaps to widen as we go along and the fall in deaths to further outstrip other measures as we continue.

I have sympathy, this time, with Contrarian's view that Cases could soon become a poor arbiter of what we should do and how hard we should lockdown. Not yet, but soon.

I do wonder what the impact on the numbers re-opening the schools will have.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's probably a bad idea and could potentially stoke up racial tensions, but I had a mad idea for a videa to promote BAME take-up of vaccination.

Start with news stories about rich and powerful people jumping the queue (like that casino owner who flew to the Yukon to pretend to be a native American to get the vaccine earlier, or politicians in some countries making sure they get vaccinated first).

Then have BAME people saying:

- "No, let some rich white guy have mine; I'll just go to the back of the queue."
- "No, I've fallen for the propaganda online that's meant to turn me off this, so someone richer can get further up the queue"
- "No, we shouldn't forget those poor white millionaires who want theirs sooner."
- "It's fine, I'll take my chance with slowly choking to death."

Finishing with a trusted BAME celebrity saying: "If you want to fall for it and give up your place in line, that's up to you. Me, well, when it's my turn - without jumping the queue - anyone gets in my way and they'll have footprints on them."

And words written on it: "Take what's yours. Take your shot."

Just update the Don't Die Of Ignorance AIDS campaign.

Another rare occasion when the Government got something exactly right in my opinion. Those adverts scared the bejesus out of me as single 18 year old. Probably the best advertising campaign I have ever seen.

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rottenborough said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1362441228097368065?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1362441488781766656?s=20

So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.

Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

Let me try and help.

1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.

Yes. It isn't the same with SP committees. I don't know why, but they have considerably less power than WM ones.

BannedinnParis said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pro_Rata said:

We are now, albeit very weakly, at the way round I expected the data to be once vaccination started to take hold, namely:

Deaths falling faster than Hospitalisations
Hospitalisations falling faster than Cases

Given that deaths lag, it has more typically been the other way round on downswings until now.

I'd expect the gaps to widen as we go along and the fall in deaths to further outstrip other measures as we continue.

I have sympathy, this time, with Contrarian's view that Cases could soon become a poor arbiter of what we should do and how hard we should lockdown. Not yet, but soon.

I do wonder what the impact on the numbers re-opening the schools will have.

cases up, rest relatively unaffected - at least for the first few weeks.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, in the run up to the 2015 GE I did a piece which pointed out that the party that led on both the leadership ratings and best to run the economy metric won the general election.

The only curio was 1997 where the Tories led on the economic question but trailed Blair so much on the leadership to be odd, especially after Black Wednesday.

I might update that piece.

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting, London is lowest across the board (could partly be a function of ONS population estimates being out):

https://twitter.com/RichardClegg522/status/1362458799714562048?s=20

Perhaps it is the reported 750,000 people who have left London since the virus broke? If they are still in the base.

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's probably a bad idea and could potentially stoke up racial tensions, but I had a mad idea for a videa to promote BAME take-up of vaccination.

Start with news stories about rich and powerful people jumping the queue (like that casino owner who flew to the Yukon to pretend to be a native American to get the vaccine earlier, or politicians in some countries making sure they get vaccinated first).

Then have BAME people saying:

- "No, let some rich white guy have mine; I'll just go to the back of the queue."
- "No, I've fallen for the propaganda online that's meant to turn me off this, so someone richer can get further up the queue"
- "No, we shouldn't forget those poor white millionaires who want theirs sooner."
- "It's fine, I'll take my chance with slowly choking to death."

Finishing with a trusted BAME celebrity saying: "If you want to fall for it and give up your place in line, that's up to you. Me, well, when it's my turn - without jumping the queue - anyone gets in my way and they'll have footprints on them."

And words written on it: "Take what's yours. Take your shot."

Just update the Don't Die Of Ignorance AIDS campaign.

Another rare occasion when the Government got something exactly right in my opinion. Those adverts scared the bejesus out of me as single 18 year old. Probably the best advertising campaign I have ever seen.

Norman Fowler’s famous pledge in the commons to send 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain was slightly excessive though.

23 million leaflets ...

But you lived in a Lib Dem marginal in Ceredigion, you must be used to this kind of deluge, no?

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NerysHughes said:

kle4 said:

Slackbladder said:

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1362377275380015108

yikes

Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.

Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.

He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.

While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.

Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.

Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".

Do we have a category prize for this?

I am not and never have been a Farage voter.

Apart from voting for a party led by him.

I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.

I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.

I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.

What point are you trying to make?

I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?

The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.

I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.

I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.

Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".

Do you see the difference?

I get the circumstances, yes, and my conclusion is unchanged. I read you as an unusual mix of Market Fundamentalist and English Nationalist who sometimes pops a button or two when attempting to meld all that together in a way that is consistent and avoids its less savoury aspects.

You should be flattered I'm interested in you. Other posters will be jealous.

I am a free marketeer and liberal. I am very libertarian. Disappointed in you that you completely omitted social liberalism in any sense.

But yes I am an English nationalist, I don't hide that nor is there a contradiction.

Everyone is a nationalist to some degree. The only question is where you put the nation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nationalism whatsoever and most "sins" supposedly to do with nationalism are actually about imperialism, I am not an imperialist.

TheScreamingEagles said:

BannedinnParis said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pro_Rata said:

We are now, albeit very weakly, at the way round I expected the data to be once vaccination started to take hold, namely:

Deaths falling faster than Hospitalisations
Hospitalisations falling faster than Cases

Given that deaths lag, it has more typically been the other way round on downswings until now.

I'd expect the gaps to widen as we go along and the fall in deaths to further outstrip other measures as we continue.

I have sympathy, this time, with Contrarian's view that Cases could soon become a poor arbiter of what we should do and how hard we should lockdown. Not yet, but soon.

I do wonder what the impact on the numbers re-opening the schools will have.

cases up, rest relatively unaffected - at least for the first few weeks.

I fear our media will focus on the worst and demand lockdown lasts a little bit longer.

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Guardian breaking: Doctors and public health officials have pleaded with Germans to take up AstraZeneca Covid vaccines against the coronavirus, AFP reports. German healthcare facilities have reported several hundred thousand vials sitting unused and rampant no-shows at scheduled appointments.

Officials in Italy, Austria and Bulgaria were also starting to signal some public resistance to the British vaccine, and France’s health minister, Olivier Véran, got the jab live on television to drum up support.

“If you are given the choice between AstraZeneca now or another vaccine in a few months, you should definitely take AstraZeneca now,” implored Carsten Watzl, general secretary of the German Society for Immunology.

The health minister, Jens Spahn, echoed the message, calling all three vaccines approved in the EU – AstraZeneca, BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna – “safe and effective” despite varying levels of efficacy.

They really have set themselves up for a catastrophe, haven't they? To make it even worse, their schedules depend on getting going with the J&J vaccine as soon as they can, but people are likely to be reluctant to take that one as well.

FrancisUrquhart said:

IanB2 said:

Guardian breaking: Doctors and public health officials have pleaded with Germans to take up AstraZeneca Covid vaccines against the coronavirus, AFP reports. German healthcare facilities have reported several hundred thousand vials sitting unused and rampant no-shows at scheduled appointments.

Officials in Italy, Austria and Bulgaria were also starting to signal some public resistance to the British vaccine, and France’s health minister, Olivier Véran, got the jab live on television to drum up support.

“If you are given the choice between AstraZeneca now or another vaccine in a few months, you should definitely take AstraZeneca now,” implored Carsten Watzl, general secretary of the German Society for Immunology.

The health minister, Jens Spahn, echoed the message, calling all three vaccines approved in the EU – AstraZeneca, BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna – “safe and effective” despite varying levels of efficacy.

How did that possibly happen.....its as if high profile individuals and media outlets have been reporting that its a shit vaccine based on pseudo-science.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, in the run up to the 2015 GE I did a piece which pointed out that the party that led on both the leadership ratings and best to run the economy metric won the general election.

The only curio was 1997 where the Tories led on the economic question but trailed Blair so much on the leadership to be odd, especially after Black Wednesday.

I might update that piece.

Gross or net leadership ratings? Or preferred PM?

Currently both leaders can claim to be in the lead depending upon how you define lead.

Net satisfaction ratings.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Guardian breaking: Doctors and public health officials have pleaded with Germans to take up AstraZeneca Covid vaccines against the coronavirus, AFP reports. German healthcare facilities have reported several hundred thousand vials sitting unused and rampant no-shows at scheduled appointments.

Officials in Italy, Austria and Bulgaria were also starting to signal some public resistance to the British vaccine, and France’s health minister, Olivier Véran, got the jab live on television to drum up support.

“If you are given the choice between AstraZeneca now or another vaccine in a few months, you should definitely take AstraZeneca now,” implored Carsten Watzl, general secretary of the German Society for Immunology.

The health minister, Jens Spahn, echoed the message, calling all three vaccines approved in the EU – AstraZeneca, BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna – “safe and effective” despite varying levels of efficacy.

They really have set themselves up for a catastrophe, haven't they? To make it even worse, their schedules depend on getting going with the J&J vaccine as soon as they can, but people are likely to be reluctant to take that one as well.

They've probably stoked antivax sentiment for years if not decades to come.

IanB2 said:

Global travel site Big 7 Travel has released the official 2021 list of the ’25 Best UK Staycations’; the top ten, in order:

Cornwall – England
The Lake District – England
Yorkshire Dales – England
Edinburgh – Scotland
Loch Lomond – Scotland
Isle of Wight – England
Norfolk Broads – England
Bath – England
Ballycastle – Northern Ireland
Manchester – England

6. Isle of Wight

This island off England’s southeast coast is famous for many things, from its stunning sandy beaches to its vibrant local culture and rich prehistoric history. One of the island’s biggest claims to fames is its plethora of fossils that have led to the discovery of more than 25 different dinosaurs that called Isle of Wight home in their day. For more recent history, there’s Queen Victoria’s royal former residence and Italian Renaissance dream in East Cowes, the Osborne House. And for a break from the tranquil sandy beaches, head to The Needles rock formation off the west end of the island.


11 - Cotswolds
12 - Snowdonia
13 - Scilly Isles
14 - Anglesey
15 - London (!)
16 - N Yorks moors
17 - Pembroke coast
18 - Orkney
19 - Brighton
20 - Skye
21 - Norwich (?)
22 - Inverness
23 - Cardiff
24 - Derry
25 - Oxford

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NerysHughes said:

kle4 said:

Slackbladder said:

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1362377275380015108

yikes

Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.

Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.

He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.

While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.

Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.

Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".

Do we have a category prize for this?

I am not and never have been a Farage voter.

Apart from voting for a party led by him.

I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.

I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.

I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.

What point are you trying to make?

I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?

The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.

I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.

I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.

Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".

Do you see the difference?

I get the circumstances, yes, and my conclusion is unchanged. I read you as an unusual mix of Market Fundamentalist and English Nationalist who sometimes pops a button or two when attempting to meld all that together in a way that is consistent and avoids its less savoury aspects.

You should be flattered I'm interested in you. Other posters will be jealous.

I am a free marketeer and liberal. I am very libertarian. Disappointed in you that you completely omitted social liberalism in any sense.

But yes I am an English nationalist, I don't hide that nor is there a contradiction.

Everyone is a nationalist to some degree. The only question is where you put the nation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nationalism whatsoever and most "sins" supposedly to do with nationalism are actually about imperialism, I am not an imperialist.

Etc. All fine. And don't strain to be totally free of contradiction. Absurdity that way lies.

But you pressed me on the specific and so I elaborated. It could be that Mrs May's xenophobia utterly repelled you. But I don't think that was really it - although I am happy to accept you were less than impressed. I think your dominant political identity had by then become Hard Leave and seeing her engaged in a great betrayal of this you were minded to seize on every flaw of hers, if necessary with hindsight, and magnify it on a x10 setting.

That's my offering to you to complement your self-imaging of what transpired. I make it with no malice. If you don't want these sorts of challenging and deeply personal insights you shouldn't have invited me into your life.

IanB2 said:

Global travel site Big 7 Travel has released the official 2021 list of the ’25 Best UK Staycations’; the top ten, in order:

Cornwall – England
The Lake District – England
Yorkshire Dales – England
Edinburgh – Scotland
Loch Lomond – Scotland
Isle of Wight – England
Norfolk Broads – England
Bath – England
Ballycastle – Northern Ireland
Manchester – England

6. Isle of Wight

This island off England’s southeast coast is famous for many things, from its stunning sandy beaches to its vibrant local culture and rich prehistoric history. One of the island’s biggest claims to fames is its plethora of fossils that have led to the discovery of more than 25 different dinosaurs that called Isle of Wight home in their day. For more recent history, there’s Queen Victoria’s royal former residence and Italian Renaissance dream in East Cowes, the Osborne House. And for a break from the tranquil sandy beaches, head to The Needles rock formation off the west end of the island.


11 - Cotswolds
12 - Snowdonia
13 - Scilly Isles
14 - Anglesey
15 - London (!)
16 - N Yorks moors
17 - Pembroke coast
18 - Orkney
19 - Brighton
20 - Skye
21 - Norwich (?)
22 - Inverness
23 - Cardiff
24 - Derry
25 - Oxford

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

IanB2 said:

Guardian breaking: Doctors and public health officials have pleaded with Germans to take up AstraZeneca Covid vaccines against the coronavirus, AFP reports. German healthcare facilities have reported several hundred thousand vials sitting unused and rampant no-shows at scheduled appointments.

Officials in Italy, Austria and Bulgaria were also starting to signal some public resistance to the British vaccine, and France’s health minister, Olivier Véran, got the jab live on television to drum up support.

“If you are given the choice between AstraZeneca now or another vaccine in a few months, you should definitely take AstraZeneca now,” implored Carsten Watzl, general secretary of the German Society for Immunology.

The health minister, Jens Spahn, echoed the message, calling all three vaccines approved in the EU – AstraZeneca, BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna – “safe and effective” despite varying levels of efficacy.

How did that possibly happen.....its as if high profile individuals and media outlets have been reporting that its a shit vaccine based on pseudo-science.

It is almost like the EU hired Andrew Wakefield to be in the charge of the vaccine rollout.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BannedinnParis said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pro_Rata said:

We are now, albeit very weakly, at the way round I expected the data to be once vaccination started to take hold, namely:

Deaths falling faster than Hospitalisations
Hospitalisations falling faster than Cases

Given that deaths lag, it has more typically been the other way round on downswings until now.

I'd expect the gaps to widen as we go along and the fall in deaths to further outstrip other measures as we continue.

I have sympathy, this time, with Contrarian's view that Cases could soon become a poor arbiter of what we should do and how hard we should lockdown. Not yet, but soon.

I do wonder what the impact on the numbers re-opening the schools will have.

cases up, rest relatively unaffected - at least for the first few weeks.

I fear our media will focus on the worst and demand lockdown lasts a little bit longer.

They can't make their mind up day to day which side they are on - at least the Mail can't. However, I do think that this lockdown is fraying a bit round the edges, and if they want to follow thir readers then your fears may not come to pass.

During the first wave their record was 90 minutes.

Article 1 - Why hasn't Boris Johnson eased restrictions as cases drop?

Article 2 - It's murder Tuesday as deaths increase 70% on yesterday. Here's where Boris Johnson should tighten restrictions further.

Casino_Royale said:

IanB2 said:

Global travel site Big 7 Travel has released the official 2021 list of the ’25 Best UK Staycations’; the top ten, in order:

Cornwall – England
The Lake District – England
Yorkshire Dales – England
Edinburgh – Scotland
Loch Lomond – Scotland
Isle of Wight – England
Norfolk Broads – England
Bath – England
Ballycastle – Northern Ireland
Manchester – England

6. Isle of Wight

This island off England’s southeast coast is famous for many things, from its stunning sandy beaches to its vibrant local culture and rich prehistoric history. One of the island’s biggest claims to fames is its plethora of fossils that have led to the discovery of more than 25 different dinosaurs that called Isle of Wight home in their day. For more recent history, there’s Queen Victoria’s royal former residence and Italian Renaissance dream in East Cowes, the Osborne House. And for a break from the tranquil sandy beaches, head to The Needles rock formation off the west end of the island.


11 - Cotswolds
12 - Snowdonia
13 - Scilly Isles
14 - Anglesey
15 - London (!)
16 - N Yorks moors
17 - Pembroke coast
18 - Orkney
19 - Brighton
20 - Skye
21 - Norwich (?)
22 - Inverness
23 - Cardiff
24 - Derry
25 - Oxford

That's a very good list.

Although you won't necessarily have a good stay in stroke city (no.24) if you insist on calling it just that.

Black_Rook said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

IanB2 said:

Guardian breaking: Doctors and public health officials have pleaded with Germans to take up AstraZeneca Covid vaccines against the coronavirus, AFP reports. German healthcare facilities have reported several hundred thousand vials sitting unused and rampant no-shows at scheduled appointments.

Officials in Italy, Austria and Bulgaria were also starting to signal some public resistance to the British vaccine, and France’s health minister, Olivier Véran, got the jab live on television to drum up support.

“If you are given the choice between AstraZeneca now or another vaccine in a few months, you should definitely take AstraZeneca now,” implored Carsten Watzl, general secretary of the German Society for Immunology.

The health minister, Jens Spahn, echoed the message, calling all three vaccines approved in the EU – AstraZeneca, BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna – “safe and effective” despite varying levels of efficacy.

How did that possibly happen.....its as if high profile individuals and media outlets have been reporting that its a shit vaccine based on pseudo-science.

It is almost like the EU hired Andrew Wakefield to be in the charge of the vaccine rollout.

Ah, I see someone else has already spotted the "EU citizens running in terror from the Oxford jab" story.

So, they don't have their shots, the continental lockdowns last longer and more of them die.

At the end of all this somebody should ask people like Macron and that tit from that German newspaper whether they might, perhaps, regret some of the rot that they've come out with. It's arguably worse than Trump's bleach remarks, which were, at least, transparently ridiculous.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just checked, Ted Cruz is up for re-election in 2024, is it possible for him to run for the GOP nomination and hold his seat?

Given how close it was last time, his sole focus should be on Texas.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can someone explain this joke to me please as I genuinely don't understand it.

Q: Apparently only one shot in six of the Sputnik V vaccinations work.

A: It's Russian rollout.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can someone explain this joke to me please as I genuinely don't understand it.

Q: Apparently only one shot in six of the Sputnik V vaccinations work.

A: It's Russian rollout.

Stark_Dawning said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can someone explain this joke to me please as I genuinely don't understand it.

Q: Apparently only one shot in six of the Sputnik V vaccinations work.

A: It's Russian rollout.

Punning 'rollout' with 'roulette'?

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can someone explain this joke to me please as I genuinely don't understand it.

Q: Apparently only one shot in six of the Sputnik V vaccinations work.

A: It's Russian rollout.

Russian roulette.

Please tell me that was a windup.

(Admittedly, it was not as good as that Mascarpone one you didn’t get a while back.)

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just checked, Ted Cruz is up for re-election in 2024, is it possible for him to run for the GOP nomination and hold his seat?

Given how close it was last time, his sole focus should be on Texas.

Answer to your question is Yes, unless TX law has changed recently.

Note that in 1960, Lyndon Johnson was on the Texas general election ballot twice, as candidate for re-election to US Senate AND as Democratic candidate for Vice President (as JFK's running mate). He was elected VP, so gave up senate seat.

In 1984, Lloyd Benson was also on the general election ballot twice in Lone Star State, running for re-election to US Senate and also for VP (on Dem ticket with Walter Mondale); since he was NOT elected VP, Benson stayed in the Senate.

Note that Texas law thus gives a sitting US Senator the chance of retaining their seat for another full term AND also running for President OR Vice President. LBJ won both elections, so could take his (obvious) choice. Lloyd Benson lost for VP (nationally AND in Texas) but was still able to retain his senate seat.