Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It looks like there’s Major Mispricing in the Majority Market – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,132

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,262
    On checking the Spanish News it seems they are in fact allowing AZN to be used up to age 65 - ie 10 years later than it was before and not for over 65s. So still pretty dumb and against all medical knowledge about its efficacy.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited March 2021
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Although in 1992 the first signs of tactical voting were important. Butler and Kavanaugh calculated that had UNS held good there would have been a Tory majority of 77. In which case it’s not hard to imagine history would have been rather different, given many of Major’s travails stemmed from his relatively small majority.

    Equally, of course, tactical voting more efficiently organised in another 30-40 seats and Kinnock would have been in charge on Black Wednesday. Which Smith, to judge from his public pronouncements, would have mishandled even more spectacularly.

    So all Labour supporters should be very glad they lost in 1992.
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Although in 1992 the first signs of tactical voting were important. Butler and Kavanaugh calculated that had UNS held good there would have been a Tory majority of 77. In which case it’s not hard to imagine history would have been rather different, given many of Major’s travails stemmed from his relatively small majority.

    Equally, of course, tactical voting more efficiently organised in another 30-40 seats and Kinnock would have been in charge on Black Wednesday. Which Smith, to judge from his public pronouncements, would have mishandled even more spectacularly.

    So all Labour supporters should be very glad they lost in 1992.
    Labour cerainly outperformed in the marginals in 1992 - particularly in London. It underperformed ,however,in Scotland that year and lost Aberdeen South to the Tories and failed to take Ayr and Stirling.Overall it is fair to say that Major might have felt narked that a popular vote lead of 7.6% yielded a majority of just 21. Had the margin been just a bit smaller - 6.5% - he would have faced a Hung Parliament similar to May post June 2017.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,783
    felix said:

    On checking the Spanish News it seems they are in fact allowing AZN to be used up to age 65 - ie 10 years later than it was before and not for over 65s. So still pretty dumb and against all medical knowledge about its efficacy.

    yeah, the US study today shows it is very effective among the over 65s.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    edited March 2021

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
    Well, it should be noted he has already broken two longstanding records. He’s the first PM to increase a majority after more than 8 years in power and the first PM in the age of universal suffrage to return to power with an increased majority following a previous election with a reduced majority.

    Equally however, I’m not sure how many bets I would take on him still being PM in three years.
    Nor do I think he will be however factors why I think labour will actually lose seats in the next election:

    1) There seems to be a fair proportion of youngsters heading from labour to the green party, not enough to give the green party more seats but enough to reduce labours vote

    2) I expect the vaccine row with the eu to escalate and spill into next year

    3) There has been a lot of comment that the red wall seats getting funded projects have been those that flipped tories. If I was a voter there I would be thinking we elected labour in 2019 and even in government we never got any help from them. Those people flipped the seat tory and got rewarded with funding projects. Maybe we should try it.

    4) The shrill loonier part of the plp are going to continue to sound off and make it seem like Starmer hasn't really cleaned the party that much like the one today

    5) I think given all that the tories will call an election early 2023
    There's certainly something to be said in favour of a more complete demolition of the Red Wall (another wave of seats going, and the existing marginals becoming safe.) We saw this happen with Theresa May's five narrow gains from Labour at GE2017 all promoting to five-figure Tory majorities in 2019.

    It's not at all inconceivable that the Conservatives might knock over another two or three dozen red dominoes in the Midlands and North, whilst three or four Tory-held Con/Lab marginals in London, and possibly a few of the Welsh seats, travel in the opposite direction.
    The very strong feel is that the Tories view is that the best form of defence is attack, and that they intend to hold their ground not by defending what they have but by advancing into new territory. At the moment I do not see the popular, or personality based, or intellectual ground on which Labour can convincingly either defend its weak points (all Labour held non super-urban/super-pseudo- intellectual territory) or attack into Tory ground.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    Labour only need one, actually :)

    I am getting more impressed with Nick Thomas-Symonds, though.

    Still, my essential point is Keir == Theresa. There is no emotional connection with the voters.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,103
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    EICIPM
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,135

    gealbhan said:

    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
    It would not be that politically difficult, or that deleterious to the UK rollout, to plug the RoI into the UK's supplies and to make a tacit agreement not to touch the output from the Dutch AZ plant. In return the Commission and the more belligerent member states could back off and stop talking about export bans, which would provide the necessary reassurance that the UK's Pfizer pipeline is safe.

    That sounds sensible. Whether this situation can be resolved sensibly is a different matter. President Macron and the German governing party are both in a lot of trouble. Who's to say that they don't want to keep a fight going with the UK as a means to try to deflect blame/shore up domestic support?
    I'm pretty sure they could have had an agreement like that two months ago.

    Its easy to imagine the public comments - "Common travel area, blah blah, Good Friday Agreement, blah blah, ease of logistics, blah blah, Irish protocol, blah blah, goodwill and community relations, blah blah".
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Endillion said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Nandy, Cooper, David Miliband.

    Ah. I see the problem.
    There is a farcical lack of leadership talent in Labour.

    The Tories have Sunak, Truss, Hancock, even Gove or Patel. You may not like them but they look capable.

    Labour?! Is the ephemeral ultraWoke Nandy really their next option? Why is Labour bereft of talent? Is it an optical illusion created by so many years of Tory government they don’t seem to have anyone substantial?

    That might be it, but by the end of the Major government and 18 years of Tory rule, Labour had Blair, Brown, Cook, Blunkett, Mandelson... all ready to go. Starmer’ s Labour doesn’t look ready to go. At all
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,132

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    Labour only need one, actually :)

    I am getting more impressed with Nick Thomas-Symonds, though.

    Still, my essential point is Keir == Theresa. There is no emotional connection with the voters.
    You said they had ‘plenty of better options.’

    So far,I am not seeing evidence for this statement.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    What do we want...kill the bill.....when do we want...but Hugo I need to go poo poo..

    https://twitter.com/beardedjourno/status/1373720314203533315?s=19
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,636

    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    I see.

    The Conservatives have been in Government for the past 11 years, partly in coalition with another party, partly with the support of another party and partly as a majority.

    In that period, there have been three Prime Ministers, two of whom won elections with majorities.

    I know Johnson tried to argue he was the LOTO in 2019 (successfully I might add) but as he served as Foreign Secretary in the May Government, it was a curious position to take. At least MacMillan didn't try to argue that.
    Its not a curious position, there were two very clear breaks in 2019.

    The First Johnson ministry began 24/07/19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Johnson_ministry
    The Second Johnson ministry began 13/12/19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Johnson_ministry

    Both were very different to what came before.
    The ability to reset is important - the electorate is all for having a change now and then, and if a party changes leader that can satisfy the urge that would otherwise lead to the Opposition.

    I do question Pip's claim that Johnson is "broadly popular" - the polls have suggested for a long time that he's not rated highly, though the vaccine success has pulled him out of the depths. He's not hated - even my most left-wing friends don't talk of him like Thatcher - but there's a pretty settled view that he's indecisive and a bit of a bluffer. If we do emerge from the pandemic is reasonable shape, I think people will give him credit for a while, but in 2023 or 24 the "time for a change" theme will be strong.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Floater said:

    gealbhan said:

    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
    Well, they could act like friends, admit their mistakes and ask for help rather than threatening us.

    I for one react better to people asking for help rather than threatening me
    Yes the first thing they have to do is sue for peace, not prepare for war. Discussing the ‘idea’ of targeting the UK ‘on principle’ and denying us Pfizer jabs legally purchased, knowing this would cripple our vaccine drive and kill many Britons, does not exactly warm me to the idea of ‘helping them’

    We have done nothing wrong other than acquit ourselves well at procuring and injecting jabs - after many other covid failures. That is it. Yet they seek to punish us for this success? Fuck that
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    RobD said:

    felix said:

    On checking the Spanish News it seems they are in fact allowing AZN to be used up to age 65 - ie 10 years later than it was before and not for over 65s. So still pretty dumb and against all medical knowledge about its efficacy.

    yeah, the US study today shows it is very effective among the over 65s.
    The study says it's very effective for basically everyone, no complications were found, and it was 100% effective against death and serious disease. Why in God's name you would want to restrict the use of a vaccine that does all that, is easy to use, and cheap, is completely beyond me. It's almost miraculous that a year on we have such a thing available to help end the pandemic, and yet far too many people are making short-sighted decisions about jabbing people which will prolong the pandemic and lead to many more deaths.

    The ship is sinking, we've got a lifeboat, get in it. It's no more complicated than that.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    Leon said:

    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1374059492158095363?s=21


    Thanks Dave. Nice to know the EU is actively discussing a plan to ‘target the UK’, even if he thinks that’s a fairly unlikely outcome

    It's a matter of principle that UK grannies die, didn't you know?
    Yet you were awfully quiet when Boris Johnson threatened to ruin medicine supplies to the UK when he said he would go for no deal.

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/10/englands-top-medical-chief-warns-deaths-no-deal-brexit-10895809/

    At times the modern world is governed by complete tosspots.
    Point of order. A ‘tosspot’ is a drunk. Boris is many things, often bad, but he’s not an alky. You possibly mean ‘tosser’ - a compulsive masturbator, who can’t get sex. But that doesn’t fit Boris either (he’s boasted about never have to whack off in thirty years)

    So maybe you mean ‘bampot’ - an objectionable and foolish person, in Scotch patois?
    Nothing wrong with masturbation, @Leon!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333
    Leon said:

    Interesting take on expanding US statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and.... Cuba

    https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1374060110713126912?s=21

    I have the feeling he hasn’t been to Cuba

    As long ago as 1805 there has been American interest in annexing Cuba. Thomas Jefferson was mostly put off by the British Royal Navy's strength in the Caribbean at that time.

    https://www.cubahistory.org/en/british-occupation-and-us-independence/us-independence.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    EICIPM
    SKSICIPM
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
    But it didn't need to make much difference! It boosted Tory turnout with some voters who had previously intended to stay at home - or vote LD - coming back to the fold in the final days. The Sheffield Rally could well have boosted the Tory lead by 1% - and that would have been enough.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Interesting take on expanding US statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and.... Cuba

    https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1374060110713126912?s=21

    I have the feeling he hasn’t been to Cuba

    As long ago as 1805 there has been American interest in annexing Cuba. Thomas Jefferson was mostly put off by the British Royal Navy's strength in the Caribbean at that time.

    https://www.cubahistory.org/en/british-occupation-and-us-independence/us-independence.html
    It was essentially a US protectorate, in all but name, until Castro took over.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,132

    Leon said:

    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1374059492158095363?s=21


    Thanks Dave. Nice to know the EU is actively discussing a plan to ‘target the UK’, even if he thinks that’s a fairly unlikely outcome

    It's a matter of principle that UK grannies die, didn't you know?
    Yet you were awfully quiet when Boris Johnson threatened to ruin medicine supplies to the UK when he said he would go for no deal.

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/10/englands-top-medical-chief-warns-deaths-no-deal-brexit-10895809/

    At times the modern world is governed by complete tosspots.
    Point of order. A ‘tosspot’ is a drunk. Boris is many things, often bad, but he’s not an alky. You possibly mean ‘tosser’ - a compulsive masturbator, who can’t get sex. But that doesn’t fit Boris either (he’s boasted about never have to whack off in thirty years)

    So maybe you mean ‘bampot’ - an objectionable and foolish person, in Scotch patois?
    Nothing wrong with masturbation, @Leon!
    We once had a poster called SeanT whose most successful work of non-fiction included a rather graphic description of how he wanked himself into hospital.

    So if he were still around, he might disagree with you.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
    But it didn't need to make much difference! It boosted Tory turnout with some voters who had previously intended to stay at home - or vote LD - coming back to the fold in the final days. The Sheffield Rally could well have boosted the Tory lead by 1% - and that would have been enough.
    Did you work out how to fill in your cenus online? :lol:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1374059492158095363?s=21


    Thanks Dave. Nice to know the EU is actively discussing a plan to ‘target the UK’, even if he thinks that’s a fairly unlikely outcome

    It's a matter of principle that UK grannies die, didn't you know?
    Yet you were awfully quiet when Boris Johnson threatened to ruin medicine supplies to the UK when he said he would go for no deal.

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/10/englands-top-medical-chief-warns-deaths-no-deal-brexit-10895809/

    At times the modern world is governed by complete tosspots.
    Point of order. A ‘tosspot’ is a drunk. Boris is many things, often bad, but he’s not an alky. You possibly mean ‘tosser’ - a compulsive masturbator, who can’t get sex. But that doesn’t fit Boris either (he’s boasted about never have to whack off in thirty years)

    So maybe you mean ‘bampot’ - an objectionable and foolish person, in Scotch patois?
    Nothing wrong with masturbation, @Leon!
    We once had a poster called SeanT whose most successful work of non-fiction included a rather graphic description of how he wanked himself into hospital.

    So if he were still around, he might disagree with you.
    Must be a work of fiction, then!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,103

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    EICIPM
    SKSICIPM
    SKSWNBPM
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
    But it didn't need to make much difference! It boosted Tory turnout with some voters who had previously intended to stay at home - or vote LD - coming back to the fold in the final days. The Sheffield Rally could well have boosted the Tory lead by 1% - and that would have been enough.
    Did you work out how to fill in your cenus online? :lol:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
    But it didn't need to make much difference! It boosted Tory turnout with some voters who had previously intended to stay at home - or vote LD - coming back to the fold in the final days. The Sheffield Rally could well have boosted the Tory lead by 1% - and that would have been enough.
    Did you work out how to fill in your cenus online? :lol:
    That was never in doubt.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813
    ydoethur said:

    You said they had ‘plenty of better options.’

    So far,I am not seeing evidence for this statement.

    They have plenty of better options than Keir ... because Keir is not that great.

    It may well be that a Labour majority in 2024 is impossible because they start so far behind.

    But, I think Rayner or Nandy would be doing better than Keir. I also think a working-class woman like Rayner would be much trickier for Boris to deal with.

    At the moment, we just get Boris and Keir exchanging Oxbridge pleasantries in the SCR over the 1920s port.

    Rayner would be kicking Boris in the balls ... or at least in his substantial gut.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342

    gealbhan said:

    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
    It would not be that politically difficult, or that deleterious to the UK rollout, to plug the RoI into the UK's supplies and to make a tacit agreement not to touch the output from the Dutch AZ plant. In return the Commission and the more belligerent member states could back off and stop talking about export bans, which would provide the necessary reassurance that the UK's Pfizer pipeline is safe.

    That sounds sensible. Whether this situation can be resolved sensibly is a different matter. President Macron and the German governing party are both in a lot of trouble. Who's to say that they don't want to keep a fight going with the UK as a means to try to deflect blame/shore up domestic support?
    It seems to me that a lot of the EU rhetoric is deliberately obscuring the relative size of the EU and the UK. Which is surprising given a lot of the Brexit arguments was how the UK would suffer because of how insignificant we are in the big picture.

    This is best seen with their deliberate conflating of the vaccine exports from the EU to the UK (almost entirely Pfizer, whose entire European production is based in the EU) with theoretical vaccine exports from the UK.

    Pfizer are meeting their delivery targets both to the EU and the UK. Obviously the numbers to the EU are many times the size of exports to the UK. Meanwhile they complain about lack of exports of AZ to the EU. But the UK has set up a manufacturing site in the UK for AZ to supply the UK. There is a manufacturing site(s) in the EU to supply AZ to the EU (that is how AZ are structured). The entire capacity of AZ to supply the UK from the UK is not insignificant, but would not contribute massively to improving EU supply given the relative size.

    The UK are doing very well because they spent more money (per capita), paid greater attention to investing early in manufacturing capacity, and have a willing population eager to get vaccinated. To put the EU woes at the door of one company (AZ) not "playing fair" is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on. And focussing largely exclusively on a non-solution to the EU problems (seeking exports from UK sites - set up to supply a population of 50m not a population of 450m) is just a distraction from actually addressing the problems that need solving.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,633
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
    But it didn't need to make much difference! It boosted Tory turnout with some voters who had previously intended to stay at home - or vote LD - coming back to the fold in the final days. The Sheffield Rally could well have boosted the Tory lead by 1% - and that would have been enough.
    Did you work out how to fill in your cenus online? :lol:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.

    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
    But it didn't need to make much difference! It boosted Tory turnout with some voters who had previously intended to stay at home - or vote LD - coming back to the fold in the final days. The Sheffield Rally could well have boosted the Tory lead by 1% - and that would have been enough.
    Did you work out how to fill in your cenus online? :lol:
    That was never in doubt.
    Aw, give yourself some credit, at least.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,937
    Is there a word for politicians who have a compulsion to dress up in costume? Prince Charles had a thing for military outfits. They used to call him 'Action Man'. It used to be a thing among African dictators and Thatcher sometimes couldn't help herself. Johnson's the worst. He looks like he's working his way through 'Toy Story'. The only thing they have in common is they're all bonkers right wingers.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    Frankly at the moment, the best strategy for the EU (to actually help themselves) viz the UK would probably be to increase their supply to the UK and let us get the rest of the UK population vaccinated as soon as possible. Then we will be able to release our multiply sourced spare vaccines to the EU and the world!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    BBC News - Factory blaze adds to computer chip supply crisis
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56486242
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    Bambos Charalambous

    I don't know if he's any good, but it's a fantastic name.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    I don't really care how the vaccine issue is resolved so long as it is resolved with no harm done to the UK's vaccination programme.

    What I want above all is this:

    - I want my 2nd Pfizer dose.
    - I want my husband's 2nd AZ vaccine dose.
    - I want my children to get vaccinated by this summer.
    - I want my daughter's business to reopen fully so that she can work, earn & make business & life plans again.
    - I want my sons to get fulfilling jobs - instead of facing repeated redundancy - & a real life.
    - I want us to get out of this dreary half existence when I can't even smile at anyone or have anyone smile back at me other than through a bloody screen, when I can't hug anyone or be hugged back, when I can't meet anyone new, when all the serendipity of life is squeezed out.

    Anyone stopping that for no good reason - out of petulance or panic or hatred or a desire to continue micro-managing my life - will get my undying hatred.

    That is all.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    So basically in the EU you need to be approaching retirement age to have a chance. Good news for UK expats who retired early i guess!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    I think the Halix plant serves AZ doses to the EU is what will emerge from this. Though it's not authorised to yet.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,262
    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
  • glw said:

    RobD said:

    felix said:

    On checking the Spanish News it seems they are in fact allowing AZN to be used up to age 65 - ie 10 years later than it was before and not for over 65s. So still pretty dumb and against all medical knowledge about its efficacy.

    yeah, the US study today shows it is very effective among the over 65s.
    The study says it's very effective for basically everyone, no complications were found, and it was 100% effective against death and serious disease. Why in God's name you would want to restrict the use of a vaccine that does all that, is easy to use, and cheap, is completely beyond me. It's almost miraculous that a year on we have such a thing available to help end the pandemic, and yet far too many people are making short-sighted decisions about jabbing people which will prolong the pandemic and lead to many more deaths.

    The ship is sinking, we've got a lifeboat, get in it. It's no more complicated than that.
    Bear in mind that "100% effective" against serious disease comes from there being 5 serious cases, all in the placebo arm. It's obviously going to be lower than 100%, and could be considerably lower since the confidence interval here is extremely wide.

    I don't like this press-release mode of dissemination, on their part.

    --AS
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
    When she isn't posting fake news on twitter....
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,262
    It's like living in a parallel universe 500 years ago!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    Spain think it's ineffective for those who most need it and France think it's dangerous.

    What a pair.

    Meanwhile the US (who are naturally predisposed not to encourage AZ because it potentially undermines the big Pharma donors) declare it to be unequivocally safe, and unequivocally effective.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
    Labour need to get out of London, or they are done for.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308
    Roger said:

    Is there a word for politicians who have a compulsion to dress up in costume? Prince Charles had a thing for military outfits. They used to call him 'Action Man'. It used to be a thing among African dictators and Thatcher sometimes couldn't help herself. Johnson's the worst. He looks like he's working his way through 'Toy Story'. The only thing they have in common is they're all bonkers right wingers.

    I think it's called 'doing a Tony', after Blair insisted quite unnecessarily on being filmed in some sort of hazmat suit during the foot and mouth crisis, images of which went all over the world and inflicted massive damage on the already beleaguered tourism industry.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,262
    felix said:

    It's like living in a parallel universe 500 years ago!
    Otherwise intelligent Spanish friends have no faith in any vaccines at all and are wholly all about blood clots and headaches....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
    Yes, she is one to watch, she did surprisingly well in the deputy contest.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    alex_ said:

    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    Spain think it's ineffective for those who most need it and France think it's dangerous.

    What a pair.

    Meanwhile the US (who are naturally predisposed not to encourage AZ because it potentially undermines the big Pharma donors) declare it to be unequivocally safe, and unequivocally effective.
    Psuedo-science....
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    Cyclefree said:

    I don't really care how the vaccine issue is resolved so long as it is resolved with no harm done to the UK's vaccination programme.

    What I want above all is this:

    - I want my 2nd Pfizer dose.
    - I want my husband's 2nd AZ vaccine dose.
    - I want my children to get vaccinated by this summer.
    - I want my daughter's business to reopen fully so that she can work, earn & make business & life plans again.
    - I want my sons to get fulfilling jobs - instead of facing repeated redundancy - & a real life.
    - I want us to get out of this dreary half existence when I can't even smile at anyone or have anyone smile back at me other than through a bloody screen, when I can't hug anyone or be hugged back, when I can't meet anyone new, when all the serendipity of life is squeezed out.

    Anyone stopping that for no good reason - out of petulance or panic or hatred or a desire to continue micro-managing my life - will get my undying hatred.

    That is all.

    Look on the bright side. There may be some validity in the case for mixing and matching vaccines.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    The number of tests we're doing must be the most in the world at this point 9,266,070 in the last 7 days.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    algarkirk said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
    Well, it should be noted he has already broken two longstanding records. He’s the first PM to increase a majority after more than 8 years in power and the first PM in the age of universal suffrage to return to power with an increased majority following a previous election with a reduced majority.

    Equally however, I’m not sure how many bets I would take on him still being PM in three years.
    Nor do I think he will be however factors why I think labour will actually lose seats in the next election:

    1) There seems to be a fair proportion of youngsters heading from labour to the green party, not enough to give the green party more seats but enough to reduce labours vote

    2) I expect the vaccine row with the eu to escalate and spill into next year

    3) There has been a lot of comment that the red wall seats getting funded projects have been those that flipped tories. If I was a voter there I would be thinking we elected labour in 2019 and even in government we never got any help from them. Those people flipped the seat tory and got rewarded with funding projects. Maybe we should try it.

    4) The shrill loonier part of the plp are going to continue to sound off and make it seem like Starmer hasn't really cleaned the party that much like the one today

    5) I think given all that the tories will call an election early 2023
    There's certainly something to be said in favour of a more complete demolition of the Red Wall (another wave of seats going, and the existing marginals becoming safe.) We saw this happen with Theresa May's five narrow gains from Labour at GE2017 all promoting to five-figure Tory majorities in 2019.

    It's not at all inconceivable that the Conservatives might knock over another two or three dozen red dominoes in the Midlands and North, whilst three or four Tory-held Con/Lab marginals in London, and possibly a few of the Welsh seats, travel in the opposite direction.
    The very strong feel is that the Tories view is that the best form of defence is attack, and that they intend to hold their ground not by defending what they have but by advancing into new territory. At the moment I do not see the popular, or personality based, or intellectual ground on which Labour can convincingly either defend its weak points (all Labour held non super-urban/super-pseudo- intellectual territory) or attack into Tory ground.
    Well, we have two by-elections coming up in Con-Lab Northern marginals - Hartlepool first, followed at some point later in the year by Batley and Spen, once the sitting MP wins the new West Yorkshire metro mayoralty (I seem to recall reading here that Tracy Brabin has said she intends to resign her seat once she lands the job.)

    If the Tories take both then that would certainly back the view that quite a large number of Labour-held marginals are vulnerable, and almost everything in Labour's top 40 defences is a Con/Lab contest in the North, Midlands and Wales. Exceptions: Dagenham & Rainham, which although in London borders two very safe Tory seats to the North and East and is highly vulnerable; Sheffield Hallam, a Lab/LD contest; and three others which are probably OK for Labour (Eltham, which is far enough into South East London to hold, and Canterbury and Warwick & Leamington, which are university seats.)

    Batley is hard to call because of the wild card of the Heavy Woollen Independents; I expect Hartlepool to stay Labour (small majority, very low turnout.) If they both go Tory then there will be ructions within the Labour Party.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Roger said:

    Is there a word for politicians who have a compulsion to dress up in costume? Prince Charles had a thing for military outfits. They used to call him 'Action Man'. It used to be a thing among African dictators and Thatcher sometimes couldn't help herself. Johnson's the worst. He looks like he's working his way through 'Toy Story'. The only thing they have in common is they're all bonkers right wingers.

    Yeah because no other politician has ever done that, have they? 🙄

    image
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    Pulpstar said:

    The number of tests we're doing must be the most in the world at this point 9,266,070 in the last 7 days.

    When does someone consider we could make money by selling capacity to others?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,823
    As it stands the tip is fine.

    There is nonetheless a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and the GE. I really don't see how the Conservatives avoid a backlash from the economic aftermath when the job retention schemes stop, unless of course Sunak is planning to run them to the next election. That being so Tory majority nailed on.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    Pulpstar said:

    The number of tests we're doing must be the most in the world at this point 9,266,070 in the last 7 days.

    Another thing a lot of EU are failing on...Italy rather disastrously decided to scale back testing, relying on fewer rapid style tests.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Leon said:

    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
    A Dada revival?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
    Labour need to get out of London, or they are done for.
    I am a Rayner fan, but I am not totally convinced by her "Purple Wall" appeal. There the young already vote Labour, it is the older vote that Labour need. I think she would struggle with those, and perhaps not appeal enough to the suburban middle class in the South.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    Leon said:

    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
    You know its bad when even the FT and the Guardian are running stories going what the hell are they playing at....
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,135
    Roger said:

    Is there a word for politicians who have a compulsion to dress up in costume? Prince Charles had a thing for military outfits. They used to call him 'Action Man'. It used to be a thing among African dictators and Thatcher sometimes couldn't help herself. Johnson's the worst. He looks like he's working his way through 'Toy Story'. The only thing they have in common is they're all bonkers right wingers.

    When Margaret Thatcher first appeared in an army camouflage jacket in the early 80s the liberal elite shuddered and predicted it would make her a laughing stock. Instead such iconic photos from Belfast or Port Stanley became essential elements of the Iron Lady's image.

    As so often in her career Lady Thatcher got away with breaking the rules. Not all politicians are so lucky when they seek to identify themselves with their countries armed forces by popping up through the turret of a tank or donning flack jacket and goggles.

    In flying by helicopter to HMS Kent during his patriotic visit to Portsmouth this week the chancellor Gordon Brown became the latest politician to risk a bit of dressing up. Will Biggles Brown in helmet and goggles become part of the next premiership? Or of the next Private Eye cover?


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/18/military.immigrationpolicy
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    He knows that a vaccine export ban that hits the UK will do permanent damage to UK-EU relations and Ireland is without a doubt the biggest loser from that. There's also a fair chance that Ireland will get the UK's spare doses from mid-May if they just shut up. If Ireland are party to an export ban then those 60m Novavax doses will simply be given to other allies or the developing world.

    Our vaccine surplus by June is going to ridiculous.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    But, but that woman from Stroud, or possibly Hebden Bridge, did a performative poo right by a policeman, thus totally proving her point about the Patriarchy. Or climate change. Both.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    Leon said:

    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
    Take the combined approach of the EU and member countries all together and they've nothing to fear from the UK. We're killing our oldies by giving them an ineffective vaccine (and maximising ineffictiveness in the other by delaying 2nd doses) and killing our youngies by giving them a dangerous one. They must be expecting the UK govt to be gone before Christmas.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I don't really care how the vaccine issue is resolved so long as it is resolved with no harm done to the UK's vaccination programme.

    What I want above all is this:

    - I want my 2nd Pfizer dose.
    - I want my husband's 2nd AZ vaccine dose.
    - I want my children to get vaccinated by this summer.
    - I want my daughter's business to reopen fully so that she can work, earn & make business & life plans again.
    - I want my sons to get fulfilling jobs - instead of facing repeated redundancy - & a real life.
    - I want us to get out of this dreary half existence when I can't even smile at anyone or have anyone smile back at me other than through a bloody screen, when I can't hug anyone or be hugged back, when I can't meet anyone new, when all the serendipity of life is squeezed out.

    Anyone stopping that for no good reason - out of petulance or panic or hatred or a desire to continue micro-managing my life - will get my undying hatred.

    That is all.

    Look on the bright side. There may be some validity in the case for mixing and matching vaccines.
    My fear is not getting any sort of second dose at all. Me getting vaccinated, though, is the least of my worries. It is my children's work prospects which keeps me up at night. They will have - on the current timetable - have lost 15 months out of their life, at a time when this matters for work, relationships etc. Any slippage .....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited March 2021

    Pulpstar said:

    The number of tests we're doing must be the most in the world at this point 9,266,070 in the last 7 days.

    Another thing a lot of EU are failing on...Italy rather disastrously decided to scale back testing, relying on fewer rapid style tests.
    If you have enough tests, the "trace" part of your system becomes very simple - person who tested positive just lets their immediate recent contacts know through Whatsapp and so forth. And that captures almost everyone.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,039
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    Bambos Charalambous

    I don't know if he's any good, but it's a fantastic name.
    He also danced an awesome jig when he first got elected. So, yes, let’s go for it.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    edited March 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    He knows that a vaccine export ban that hits the UK will do permanent damage to UK-EU relations and Ireland is without a doubt the biggest loser from that. There's also a fair chance that Ireland will get the UK's spare doses from mid-May if they just shut up. If Ireland are party to an export ban then those 60m Novavax doses will simply be given to other allies or the developing world.

    Our vaccine surplus by June is going to ridiculous.
    The common travel area puts the Republic right at the front of the line for spare vaccine. And we could do the entire country in two weeks. Their national interest is in speeding up the UK rollout.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309
    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
    Labour need to get out of London, or they are done for.
    Wrong. That’s a myth. If they find a winner, their seat being in London won’t matter. It’s one factor among many, not a dealbreaker.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    I notice Owen Jones and co are now leading the pile on of as some idiot Tory councillor who joking said well we should just bomb Bristol.

    No criticism of actual violence, all yeah, but no, but yeah, but facist Tories, what do they expect if you don't let people protest....man makes idiot joke on twitter....get himmmmmmmm.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    Leon said:

    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
    Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Jess Phillips, if long term she is as good as she seems, could get Tories to pay attention.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Unanimity in the council, any single country can block the use of article 122. The list of countries against export bans is growing with Austria and Ireland joining it in addition to Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Hungary.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.

    Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    He knows that a vaccine export ban that hits the UK will do permanent damage to UK-EU relations and Ireland is without a doubt the biggest loser from that. There's also a fair chance that Ireland will get the UK's spare doses from mid-May if they just shut up. If Ireland are party to an export ban then those 60m Novavax doses will simply be given to other allies or the developing world.

    Our vaccine surplus by June is going to ridiculous.
    Also, of course, Ireland is home to a relatively huge Pharma sector, which, if it gets unnerved by EU wankery, could partly decamp to the UK or elsewhere. Northern Ireland would be especially tempting with sane UK laws, UK and EU market access, and promised lower Corp tax rates
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,783
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Unanimity in the council, any single country can block the use of article 122. The list of countries against export bans is growing with Austria and Ireland joining it in addition to Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Hungary.
    How about a veto in exchange for a few UK vaccines?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    That’s two.
    I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
    Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
    Labour need to get out of London, or they are done for.
    Perhaps the party membership lacks the will? If the Labour Party dies off outside the urban cores then they can content themselves with running local one-party states (devolution and metro mayors give them a few extra levers to pull as well,) whilst spending most of the time eternally screaming at the Tories and imagining a better world that they'll never have to take responsibility for building?

    It's not at all inconceivable that this is where we end up in England. Political Japanification - a one-and-a-half party system, with the Tories being the one (and providing a conveyor belt of Prime Ministers) and Labour being the half.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    But, but that woman from Stroud, or possibly Hebden Bridge, did a performative poo right by a policeman, thus totally proving her point about the Patriarchy. Or climate change. Both.
    I'm glad I missed that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Crucial point. Netherlands have already said, today, they will follow the agreed EU position, so we are relying on Ireland and Belgium to hold the line. If they can. If it’s unanimity
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    But, but that woman from Stroud, or possibly Hebden Bridge, did a performative poo right by a policeman, thus totally proving her point about the Patriarchy. Or climate change. Both.
    She will be called something Poppy, Hetty or Lulu...and went to Roedean.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    On who could do a better job than Starmer, I always think Jonathan Ashworth comes across as borderline normal. He has a northern accent, but it's quite a nice voice.

    Just skimming through the Labour MPs, there's just so many that I know nothing about. I'd suggest Sarah Champion and Wes Streeting should be more prominent in Starmer's plans as they come across very well.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    edited March 2021
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.

    Of course the argument is ludicrous. But you can bet that won't stop the Tories from claiming that opposition to the bill equates to going soft on the rioters. And they will be successful. Maybe if they go for any subtlety/nuance they will try to argue that the changes were requested by the police and that opposition is undermining the police (who were the targets in Bristol).

  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    glw said:

    Leon said:

    felix said:

    He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
    The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
    Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
    It was a decision steered by Brexit and seen as a potential vindication of Brexit - superior to slow EU bureaucracy - even if, technically, we could have also opted out within the EU.

    If we’d voted Remain I have no doubts we’d have joined the EU vax project. Solidarity, bro
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Unanimity in the council, any single country can block the use of article 122. The list of countries against export bans is growing with Austria and Ireland joining it in addition to Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Hungary.
    Oh good. Not many things left to unanimity post-Lisbon, so good to know.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    edited March 2021
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    But, but that woman from Stroud, or possibly Hebden Bridge, did a performative poo right by a policeman, thus totally proving her point about the Patriarchy. Or climate change. Both.
    The left have the wrong sort of idiots, with such a clear overlap with people who actually count, like ultra left MPs. The Tories manage to detach from the fascist right in a way that Labour don't quite detach from the fascist left. And while Tories have total idiots on the right like Steve Baker they are not like the total idiots of the left Labour MP style who say the wrong thing about burning police cars, rioting and killing the bill. The idiocy of Baker/Francois an co is of a more rarefied and theoretical nature.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    He knows that a vaccine export ban that hits the UK will do permanent damage to UK-EU relations and Ireland is without a doubt the biggest loser from that. There's also a fair chance that Ireland will get the UK's spare doses from mid-May if they just shut up. If Ireland are party to an export ban then those 60m Novavax doses will simply be given to other allies or the developing world.

    Our vaccine surplus by June is going to ridiculous.
    Also, of course, Ireland is home to a relatively huge Pharma sector, which, if it gets unnerved by EU wankery, could partly decamp to the UK or elsewhere. Northern Ireland would be especially tempting with sane UK laws, UK and EU market access, and promised lower Corp tax rates
    I think Ireland has managed to end up in quite a difficult position as a result of the Brexit deal. It will be interesting to see what the real effect on their trade is when things start to get back to normal.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Crucial point. Netherlands have already said, today, they will follow the agreed EU position, so we are relying on Ireland and Belgium to hold the line. If they can. If it’s unanimity
    Whatever they decide on Thursday they have now made the case for the UK to further diverge and disentangle from the EU. We can't trust the EU.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.

    Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
    I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.

    What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited March 2021
    Arizona opening up their vaxx program to all adults even though they're only 24.8% (First doses) done. Either that's a collossal amount of supply, people not being done in a "good" order or a huge amount of hesitancy.

    Probably all three - though I do expect the USA to overtake us in terms of total jabs at some point in April with their secured supply.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited March 2021
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Being the incumbent, ahead in the polls, and with a PM vastly more charismatic than the LotO is almost as strong a position as you could hope for

    I hadn’t even thought about it, but 7/4 seems humongous, good spot Quincel
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333
    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
    Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
    I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.

    I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
    She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.

    The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.

    I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
    Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.

    Of course the argument is ludicrous. But you can bet that won't stop the Tories from claiming that opposition to the bill equates to going soft on the rioters. And they will be successful. Maybe if they go for any subtlety/nuance they will try to argue that the changes were requested by the police and that opposition is undermining the police (who were the targets in Bristol).

    Sure, alongside performative flag exhibition we have performative authoritarianism. I don't think even the Tories believe new laws and offences are needed, it is all about appealing to the "Hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Crucial point. Netherlands have already said, today, they will follow the agreed EU position, so we are relying on Ireland and Belgium to hold the line. If they can. If it’s unanimity
    It scarcely matters. The pressure to agree this unanimously will be enormous.

    The government needs to be on the phone to every pharma company in the world right now offering them every incentive to relocate to Britain.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited March 2021
    Surely this just ends up with the Halix AZ site supplying the EU only ?

    I mean that's not great from a British perspective but banning raw ingredients/Purrs (Pfizer) is the way madness lies.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,342
    edited March 2021

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Well said, the Taiseoach. Taieseouch. Teirsieach. Teashuck. Big T shuck shuck. The Green shuckstee. That wee fella from Ireland. Him.

    https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1374024902383173636?s=21

    Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
    Unanimity in the council, any single country can block the use of article 122. The list of countries against export bans is growing with Austria and Ireland joining it in addition to Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Hungary.
    Oh good. Not many things left to unanimity post-Lisbon, so good to know.
    Hopefully we will be proven right, but i suspect that (leaving aside those countries with specific interests in the Pharmaceutical industry) the smaller EU countries have realised that they have little to gain from playing politics with export bans. It's been pointed out that the actual impact of a ban would bring little actual gain to the EU in terms of supply (given the relative size of UK/EU). And even less therefore to the smaller countries. They must realise that the value is in concentrating on increasing overall supply and not treating it as a zero sum game.

    EU REPEAT AFTER ME: "VACCINE SUPPLY IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME". Recognise that and you are halfway to resolving your problems.
This discussion has been closed.