Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...2 -
Final YouGov/Times Scottish Parliament voting intention (2-4 May)
CONSTITUENCY
SNP 52% (+3 from 16-20 April)
Con 20% (-1)
Lab 19% (-2)
LD 6% (nc)
Green 2% (+1)
REGIONAL LIST
SNP 38% (-1)
Con 22% (nc)
Lab 16% (-1)
Green 13% (+3)
LD 5% (nc)
Alba 3% (+1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/04/scottish-voting-intention-snp-52-con-20-lab-19-2-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=final_call_Scotland_VI_May_2021 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1389615995074011139/photo/10 -
Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.2 -
I don't agree that the unrealistically pessimistic (frankly knowingly incorrect) models provided any service. It just handed the government, civil servants and public health types exactly what they needed to justify their ridiculously slow unlockdown plan and to prepare the ground for continuing measures after June 21st. These models went well beyond "reasonable" worst case scenario planning. They assumed significantly worse vaccine efficacy than we had already observed, even against variants and an effective freeze in the number of people who would have partial of full immunity. These are simply incorrect data inputs intended to get a specifically desired outcome. They did it on purpose and now they need to be forced to retract their paper.Selebian said:
Well, we've had this debate before, but the groups that contributed provided different modelled sceanrios based on different assumptions of vaccine efficacy in protection and protection against onwards transmission. You seem to only focus on the most pessimistic; the modelled scenarios included things that were far, far away from 'doom'.MaxPB said:
It wasn't Ferguson who was banging on about a "third wave with more hospitalisations than the second" but it's a start. All of these scientists and their dodgy models need to have a very bright light shone on themSelebian said:
Will this do?MaxPB said:Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.
The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.rottenborough said:Even the Modeller of Doom admits this is nearly over.
Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn
Now, you'll say the pessimistic assumptions were too pessimistic (I agree) and that even the most optimistic were too pessimistic (I agree again) but the models will have been put togther with the well established facts available at the time. Still too pessimistic, quite possibly, but anything beyond that is too specultive and potentially irrepsonsible - "based on flimsy evidence, we confidently say there's no chance of further problems", that is misleading the politicians making the decisions.
I was involved in a report for the NHS last year looking at a (non-infectious) condition and predicting future numbers for service planning. There seem to be some changes in incidence, but the big driver of changes in prevalence (which has increased over 50% in a decade) is increased survival times. We modelled a range of scenarios based on different impacts from new treatments extending survival further. But we also modelled a scenario in which there is no increase in incidence or survival, but changes only based on population growth and changing demographics. That showed a 10% predicted increase in the next ten years. Now, that final prediction of 10% is complete nonsense. The assumptions are demonstably false. But the commissioners found it useful as it was the one thing we could say with certainty: in ten years time you'll need, at an absolute and unrealistic minimum, a 10% increase in care capacity. The money will be allocated now, training given and the service built up. Further increases will depend on future developments in treatment and survival. But that 10% estimate, complete nonsense as it is, is useful. Without it, we'd have a range of possibilities with great uncertainties (impacts of treatments not yet even conceived) and not be able to give a hard limit on numbers at either end.
The SAGE models do the same. The worst cases are nonsense - we can say that now and could pretty much say that when they were published. But it told the policy makers and civil servants useful things. Absolute worst is similar to January. The NHS coped in January in the middle of winter. So that nonsense forecase said we would cope in any third wave. We didn't need to build Nightingale hospitals or panic buy ventilators. Importantly, we could unlock as planned and not crash the NHS, if the politicians were able to take a (very) low risk of a wave rivalling January. The roadmap did not change, so I guess we can conclude that they could (and I'm pretty sure the scientists will ithave made it clear to them what the more likely scenarios were).
From a professional standards point of view if I'd released a model where I'd knowingly input incorrect data points and then consequently been proven wrong then I'd have to make a shit ton of apologies to VP level management for being such a massive fuckwit in the first place.
That's where you and I disagree, you want no accountability for these scientists who knowingly produce garbage data to fit some political agenda. I think we should have some. If that means fewer scientists producing politically driven garbage models then all the better.0 -
Yes, Wednesday is the new Tuesday. For this week, anyway.Stocky said:
Yes but on the other hand many will have died of Covid outside of 28 days which will not be in figures. I've kind of accepted that one balances the other.Philip_Thompson said:Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?
That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?
Only 4 today - on a murder Tuesday. (Unless bank holiday moves that back to Wednesday?)1 -
Viagra wasn’t that huge a drug, although it went up like a rocket so hard to touchSeaShantyIrish2 said:
Beating Viagra? Now that IS impressive!Nigelb said:Pfizer's forecast revenues for its vaccine will give it, by some distance, the biggest single year sales for any drug in history.
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/13895318639082373150 -
Does anyone still think pcc elections are a good idea?SandyRentool said:
Oh no - not a PCC election here on PB. How do I spoil my ballot?TOPPING said:
I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?DavidL said:
I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.kle4 said:
Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.kle4 said:
You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.TheJezziah said:
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?kle4 said:
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.Philip_Thompson said:
First?TheJezziah said:
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.Pagan2 said:
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in factTheJezziah said:
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)Endillion said:
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.RochdalePioneers said:
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.Pagan2 said:
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime ministerRochdalePioneers said:
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.Philip_Thompson said:
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.RochdalePioneers said:
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.TheJezziah said:Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.
So vain.
Cameron’s idea was to slash the police budget, then blame the pcc’s for the inevitable consequences. Now Boris is fixing the problem Dave created, they’re surplus to requirements.
Unnecessary and expensive elections for a role that shouldn’t be partisan, IMO.4 -
An odd way to talk about large numbers of perfectly unexceptional citizens of this country. I'll do you a favour and assume lurid banter.CursingStone said:
The contempt is nowhere near as high as it needs to be. The swamp needs to be drained, but it seems highly unlikely .kinabalu said:
True. But there's 3 years to go till the GE and with the contempt that this government has for educated, left/liberal metropolitans I think "Zero Tory" is a feasible stretch goal for London NW3.algarkirk said:
Tories get 10% of the vote in Labour's safest seat (Walton) and Labour get 13% in the Tory's safest (S Holland). Nowhere near extinction time yet.kinabalu said:
No, not yet. I think we can have a crack at it round here though. Can you imagine if we pulled it off at the next GE? Talk about your badge of honour! - and a great boost for house prices as people in more "diverse" areas hear about it and want a piece.RobD said:.
Are there really seats where the Tory vote is zero? Even in seats like East Ham they manage ~15%.kinabalu said:
I don't think the Tories have a single voter left around my way. So that's part of it. Hopefully just a small part, though, since such a swap would be electorally inefficient for Labour.ping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?2 -
17 last Tuesday so if single figures tomorrow then result.SandyRentool said:
Yes, Wednesday is the new Tuesday. For this week, anyway.Stocky said:
Yes but on the other hand many will have died of Covid outside of 28 days which will not be in figures. I've kind of accepted that one balances the other.Philip_Thompson said:Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?
That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?
Only 4 today - on a murder Tuesday. (Unless bank holiday moves that back to Wednesday?)0 -
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
There is of course not many artisan bakers or organic cyclist cafes in Newcastle City Centre either.1 -
0
-
I'd be wary of weekend/BH reporting on this occasion. And awaits the media misunderstanding tomorrow...Stocky said:
Yes but on the other hand many will have died of Covid outside of 28 days which will not be in figures. I've kind of accepted that one balances the other.Philip_Thompson said:Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?
That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?
Only 4 today - on a murder Tuesday. (Unless bank holiday moves that back to Wednesday?)0 -
A few years back the Tory candidate in Trimdon ward got zero votes. These days they probably weigh the Tory vote.Gallowgate said:
I think the bantz of being the only Tory in NW3 would be too strong to resist so you'll get a few thousand votes on that basis alone.kinabalu said:
True. But there's 3 years to go till the GE and with the contempt that this government has for educated, left/liberal metropolitans I think "Zero Tory" is a feasible stretch goal for London NW3.algarkirk said:
Tories get 10% of the vote in Labour's safest seat (Walton) and Labour get 13% in the Tory's safest (S Holland). Nowhere near extinction time yet.kinabalu said:
No, not yet. I think we can have a crack at it round here though. Can you imagine if we pulled it off at the next GE? Talk about your badge of honour! - and a great boost for house prices as people in more "diverse" areas hear about it and want a piece.RobD said:.
Are there really seats where the Tory vote is zero? Even in seats like East Ham they manage ~15%.kinabalu said:
I don't think the Tories have a single voter left around my way. So that's part of it. Hopefully just a small part, though, since such a swap would be electorally inefficient for Labour.ping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?0 -
That’s the highest constituency vote I’ve seen for some time..Scott_xP said:Final YouGov/Times Scottish Parliament voting intention (2-4 May)
CONSTITUENCY
SNP 52% (+3 from 16-20 April)
Con 20% (-1)
Lab 19% (-2)
LD 6% (nc)
Green 2% (+1)
REGIONAL LIST
SNP 38% (-1)
Con 22% (nc)
Lab 16% (-1)
Green 13% (+3)
LD 5% (nc)
Alba 3% (+1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/04/scottish-voting-intention-snp-52-con-20-lab-19-2-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=final_call_Scotland_VI_May_2021 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1389615995074011139/photo/10 -
So that's 54% for Indy in the Constituency vote and 54% for Indy in the List vote.Scott_xP said:Final YouGov/Times Scottish Parliament voting intention (2-4 May)
CONSTITUENCY
SNP 52% (+3 from 16-20 April)
Con 20% (-1)
Lab 19% (-2)
LD 6% (nc)
Green 2% (+1)
REGIONAL LIST
SNP 38% (-1)
Con 22% (nc)
Lab 16% (-1)
Green 13% (+3)
LD 5% (nc)
Alba 3% (+1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/04/scottish-voting-intention-snp-52-con-20-lab-19-2-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=final_call_Scotland_VI_May_2021 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1389615995074011139/photo/1
Any idea what that equates to in terms of seats?0 -
Care home news has been a persistent area of poor communication and decisions generally, it seems.Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.2 -
PS countdown until @HYUFD does "the post".2
-
Savanta ComRes.
Westminster Voting Intention:
CON: 40% (-2)
LAB 36% (+1)
LDM: 8% (=)
GRN: 4% (+1)
SNP: 4% (-1)
Via
@SavantaComRes
, 30 Apr - 2 May.
Changes w/ 23-25 Apr.0 -
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)
0 -
I also think that those that run the care homes are shit scared of being blamed/sued when a patient dies, and someone wants to make an issue. Far easier to just lock them up as tight as possible and be intransigent than take the risk.kle4 said:
Care home news has been a persistent area of poor communication and decisions generally, it seems.Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.0 -
Vegan strip clubs?Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
There is of course not many artisan bakers or organic cyclist cafes in Newcastle City Centre either.
If vegans REALLY want the world to get with the program, they should consider this option?
Damn sight more appealing than your average vegan cafe!0 -
Some of us are metropolitan liberal elite and a man of the people.kle4 said:
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)0 -
Its allowed according to this:Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visiting-care-homes-during-coronavirus/update-on-policies-for-visiting-arrangements-in-care-homes
"It is important that the named visitors remain the same people as far as possible. This is important in reducing the risk of transmission, by limiting the number of different people coming into the care home from the community. However, we recognise that there will be situations in which a named visitor cannot continue to visit (for example because of illness). We advise care homes and families to take a pragmatic approach, with the aim of minimising change wherever possible."2 -
Is THAT the kind of thing, that got you personally interested in the pharmaceuticals industry?Charles said:
Viagra wasn’t that huge a drug, although it went up like a rocket so hard to touchSeaShantyIrish2 said:
Beating Viagra? Now that IS impressive!Nigelb said:Pfizer's forecast revenues for its vaccine will give it, by some distance, the biggest single year sales for any drug in history.
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/13895318639082373150 -
I think you just want to go to a den of debauchery, the vegan part of your proposal is simply a figleaf.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Vegan strip clubs?Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
There is of course not many artisan bakers or organic cyclist cafes in Newcastle City Centre either.
If vegans REALLY want the world to get with the program, they should consider this option?
Damn sight more appealing than your average vegan cafe!0 -
I would go one stage further than that - they don't want covid in their homes as it takes time to find replacement residents.turbotubbs said:
I also think that those that run the care homes are shit scared of being blamed/sued when a patient dies, and someone wants to make an issue. Far easier to just lock them up as tight as possible and be intransigent than take the risk.kle4 said:
Care home news has been a persistent area of poor communication and decisions generally, it seems.Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.0 -
No doubt. Who?TheScreamingEagles said:
Some of us are metropolitan liberal elite and a man of the people.kle4 said:
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)0 -
Alex Salmond is at the centre of a row about transgender rights over a remark he is reported to have made to the respected broadcaster Jim Spence.
Writing in his latest column for The Courier, Mr Spence claimed the former first minister complained to him the SNP had been “captured by around a hundred loony tune transgender warriors”.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2191135/exclusive-alex-salmond-embroiled-in-transgender-remark-row/?utm_source=twitter0 -
Objectively, Boris Johnsonkle4 said:
No doubt. Who?TheScreamingEagles said:
Some of us are metropolitan liberal elite and a man of the people.kle4 said:
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)2 -
Savanta ComRes showing much lower swing over the last (approx) week than others:
Savanta ComRes - lead down from 7 to 4
Opinium - lead down from 11 to 5
Redfield - lead down from 10 to 2
Survation - lead down from 6 to 10 -
Truly, but it's only one in five who "strongly agree" that the election was stolen.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Caveat - "Republican voters" are WAY more than "registered Republicans" for several reasons, for example states such as my own beloved WA that do NOT have party registration.Nigelb said:
On the contrary, we're quite happy to discuss it.contrarian said:
....TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks, your assertion last night was wrong then.contrarian said:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.TheScreamingEagles said:
My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.contrarian said:
Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?TheScreamingEagles said:
PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.contrarian said:Hartlepool Shmartlepool.
The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/
PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.
There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.
CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'
It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.
What's the big deal?
The 154m Census number is based on those that definitively reported having voted, you forget the 36m that didn't respond.
As the Census bureau notes.
The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration.
I know you and almost everybody on here would not like to face up to the fact that more than 70% of republican voters still don't think Biden got enough legit votes to win. But its true, they don't. And stuff like this is used to keep that notion going.
However, we would like you to face up to the fact that (1) registered Republicans constitute only a third of the electorate, so you're only talking about one in five voters, and (2) the main reason they persist in that belief is that their leaders persist in lying about the election.
The Republican voters Contrarian is referring to, are folks who voted for Republican President & nominee Trumpsky. Of which 70% equates to approx. one in three voters.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-04/topline_write_up_reuters_ipsos_trump_coattails_poll_-_april_02_2021.pdf0 -
I remember that. The candidate only got on the ballot, because a local Labour bloke took pity on the kid the Tories sent there to gather sigs for the petition, and helped him find enough to qualify (including his own) with proviso that none of the signers were gonna vote for the Great Blue Hope.SandyRentool said:
A few years back the Tory candidate in Trimdon ward got zero votes. These days they probably weigh the Tory vote.Gallowgate said:
I think the bantz of being the only Tory in NW3 would be too strong to resist so you'll get a few thousand votes on that basis alone.kinabalu said:
True. But there's 3 years to go till the GE and with the contempt that this government has for educated, left/liberal metropolitans I think "Zero Tory" is a feasible stretch goal for London NW3.algarkirk said:
Tories get 10% of the vote in Labour's safest seat (Walton) and Labour get 13% in the Tory's safest (S Holland). Nowhere near extinction time yet.kinabalu said:
No, not yet. I think we can have a crack at it round here though. Can you imagine if we pulled it off at the next GE? Talk about your badge of honour! - and a great boost for house prices as people in more "diverse" areas hear about it and want a piece.RobD said:.
Are there really seats where the Tory vote is zero? Even in seats like East Ham they manage ~15%.kinabalu said:
I don't think the Tories have a single voter left around my way. So that's part of it. Hopefully just a small part, though, since such a swap would be electorally inefficient for Labour.ping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
That year, anyway.0 -
Deaths are now only a whisker over 10/day on average. Yet I wouldn't expect the government to accelerate the timetable – they seem wedded to 17 May.MaxPB said:Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.
The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.0 -
Fine margins in the exact tally, but one swingometer gives it as:Gallowgate said:
So that's 54% for Indy in the Constituency vote and 54% for Indy in the List vote.Scott_xP said:Final YouGov/Times Scottish Parliament voting intention (2-4 May)
CONSTITUENCY
SNP 52% (+3 from 16-20 April)
Con 20% (-1)
Lab 19% (-2)
LD 6% (nc)
Green 2% (+1)
REGIONAL LIST
SNP 38% (-1)
Con 22% (nc)
Lab 16% (-1)
Green 13% (+3)
LD 5% (nc)
Alba 3% (+1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/04/scottish-voting-intention-snp-52-con-20-lab-19-2-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=final_call_Scotland_VI_May_2021 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1389615995074011139/photo/1
Any idea what that equates to in terms of seats?
SNP - 68 (seats)
Tory - 26
Lab - 17
Green - 13
LD - 5
SNP majority of 6, Indy majority of 32 (i.e. 81 seats for the SNP + Greens).
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/scottish-parliament?election=2016s&cSNP=52&cLAB=19&cCON=20&cLD=6&rSNP=38&rCON=22&rLAB=16&rGRN=13&rLD=5&rUKIP=1&rAFU=1&rALBA=3&rRefUK=1#Scotland0 -
Crikey - even I'm not that cynical...eek said:
I would go one stage further than that - they don't want covid in their homes as it takes time to find replacement residents.turbotubbs said:
I also think that those that run the care homes are shit scared of being blamed/sued when a patient dies, and someone wants to make an issue. Far easier to just lock them up as tight as possible and be intransigent than take the risk.kle4 said:
Care home news has been a persistent area of poor communication and decisions generally, it seems.Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.0 -
Ironically the weather is pronged for a warm up on... 17 May. Would be darkly funny to see the pubs open their doors only to see multiple requests from punters to sit outside.eek said:
I don't see much reason for the May 17th changes to be brought forward but there is little reason to not bring the June changes forward.MaxPB said:Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.
The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.0 -
Me.kle4 said:
No doubt. Who?TheScreamingEagles said:
Some of us are metropolitan liberal elite and a man of the people.kle4 said:
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)
Well I was recently upgraded to upper class by some friends (they were doing a quiz and it asked them how many upper class people they knew, for this you didn't need a title for to be upper class.)0 -
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.2 -
... by voting Labour?SandyRentool said:
Oh no - not a PCC election here on PB. How do I spoil my ballot?TOPPING said:
I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?DavidL said:
I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.kle4 said:
Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.kle4 said:
You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.TheJezziah said:
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?kle4 said:
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.Philip_Thompson said:
First?TheJezziah said:
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.Pagan2 said:
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in factTheJezziah said:
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)Endillion said:
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.RochdalePioneers said:
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.Pagan2 said:
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime ministerRochdalePioneers said:
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.Philip_Thompson said:
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.RochdalePioneers said:
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.TheJezziah said:Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.
So vain.0 -
Yes, I quoted that very passage to the care home manager this afternoon and got nowhere. Because both of the named visitors are not ill they cannot be replaced, she said.noneoftheabove said:
Its allowed according to this:Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visiting-care-homes-during-coronavirus/update-on-policies-for-visiting-arrangements-in-care-homes
"It is important that the named visitors remain the same people as far as possible. This is important in reducing the risk of transmission, by limiting the number of different people coming into the care home from the community. However, we recognise that there will be situations in which a named visitor cannot continue to visit (for example because of illness). We advise care homes and families to take a pragmatic approach, with the aim of minimising change wherever possible."0 -
My thoughts exactly.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...0 -
The Boffin' Boffin? – is this the very same Professor Ferguson who filled the airwaves preaching to his subjects only to then sneak out to get his end away with a blonde lady?Leon said:
Got a lot of respect for Neil Ferguson. His ‘500,000 deaths’ quote - which received much derision on here - turned out to be bang on: as a reasonable worst case scenario for UK Covid with no mitigationMaffew said:
I thought Neil Ferguson had avoided the doom porn and for most of this year was saying once vaccination is complete we're pretty much done in the UK and would just have to live with flu-level outbreaks.Selebian said:
Will this do?MaxPB said:Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.
The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.rottenborough said:Even the Modeller of Doom admits this is nearly over.
Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn
He then got death threats for a year. Now he’s willing to dial down the doom0 -
There was no metro, just a notorious 'psychopath' as the cyclepath was known as, rape and robbery was not uncommon.felix said:
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.1 -
So even he is not all bad......CarlottaVance said:Alex Salmond is at the centre of a row about transgender rights over a remark he is reported to have made to the respected broadcaster Jim Spence.
Writing in his latest column for The Courier, Mr Spence claimed the former first minister complained to him the SNP had been “captured by around a hundred loony tune transgender warriors”.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2191135/exclusive-alex-salmond-embroiled-in-transgender-remark-row/?utm_source=twitter2 -
If we took the pro rata turnout for those elections then it would only be @Leon's fingernail voting.SandyRentool said:
Oh no - not a PCC election here on PB. How do I spoil my ballot?TOPPING said:
I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?DavidL said:
I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.kle4 said:
Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.kle4 said:
You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.TheJezziah said:
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?kle4 said:
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.Philip_Thompson said:
First?TheJezziah said:
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.Pagan2 said:
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in factTheJezziah said:
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)Endillion said:
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.RochdalePioneers said:
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.Pagan2 said:
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime ministerRochdalePioneers said:
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.Philip_Thompson said:
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.RochdalePioneers said:
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.TheJezziah said:Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.
So vain.0 -
Agreed. We can't use today as a rule of thumb as we would a normal Tuesday. That said, 4 is a low number even accounting for bank holiday effect. Let's see what the rest of the week brings.SandyRentool said:
Yes, Wednesday is the new Tuesday. For this week, anyway.Stocky said:
Yes but on the other hand many will have died of Covid outside of 28 days which will not be in figures. I've kind of accepted that one balances the other.Philip_Thompson said:Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?
That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?
Only 4 today - on a murder Tuesday. (Unless bank holiday moves that back to Wednesday?)0 -
Our PCC claims that their role and office cost are less than the old police authority.ping said:
Does anyone still think pcc elections are a good idea?SandyRentool said:
Oh no - not a PCC election here on PB. How do I spoil my ballot?TOPPING said:
I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?DavidL said:
I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.kle4 said:
Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.kle4 said:
You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.TheJezziah said:
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?kle4 said:
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.Philip_Thompson said:
First?TheJezziah said:
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.Pagan2 said:
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in factTheJezziah said:
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)Endillion said:
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.RochdalePioneers said:
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.Pagan2 said:
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime ministerRochdalePioneers said:
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.Philip_Thompson said:
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.RochdalePioneers said:
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.TheJezziah said:Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.
So vain.
Cameron’s idea was to slash the police budget, then blame the pcc’s for the inevitable consequences. Now Boris is fixing the problem Dave created, they’re surplus to requirements.
Unnecessary and expensive elections for a role that shouldn’t be partisan, IMO.0 -
The University's influence is no where near as strong as in cities with multiple universities, but it is still a factor. Look at Teesside. Middlesborough stands alone as the last Labour holdout. One possible factor is the university.felix said:
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.1 -
"Contract out the cleaning staff, job done. To the pub?"CursingStone said:
Our PCC claims that their role and office cost are less than the old police authority.ping said:
Does anyone still think pcc elections are a good idea?SandyRentool said:
Oh no - not a PCC election here on PB. How do I spoil my ballot?TOPPING said:
I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?DavidL said:
I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.kle4 said:
Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.kle4 said:
You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.TheJezziah said:
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?kle4 said:
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.Philip_Thompson said:
First?TheJezziah said:
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.Pagan2 said:
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in factTheJezziah said:
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)Endillion said:
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.RochdalePioneers said:
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.Pagan2 said:
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime ministerRochdalePioneers said:
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.Philip_Thompson said:
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.RochdalePioneers said:
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.TheJezziah said:Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.
So vain.
Cameron’s idea was to slash the police budget, then blame the pcc’s for the inevitable consequences. Now Boris is fixing the problem Dave created, they’re surplus to requirements.
Unnecessary and expensive elections for a role that shouldn’t be partisan, IMO.2 -
That really is wilful incompetence. If there is any escalation procedure beyond the manager someone will hopefully see sense.Stocky said:
Yes, I quoted that very passage to the care home manager this afternoon and got nowhere. Because both of the named visitors are not ill they cannot be replaced, she said.noneoftheabove said:
Its allowed according to this:Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visiting-care-homes-during-coronavirus/update-on-policies-for-visiting-arrangements-in-care-homes
"It is important that the named visitors remain the same people as far as possible. This is important in reducing the risk of transmission, by limiting the number of different people coming into the care home from the community. However, we recognise that there will be situations in which a named visitor cannot continue to visit (for example because of illness). We advise care homes and families to take a pragmatic approach, with the aim of minimising change wherever possible."0 -
Regrettably, standards continuing to slide to hell in a heck of a hurry . . .TheScreamingEagles said:
Me.kle4 said:
No doubt. Who?TheScreamingEagles said:
Some of us are metropolitan liberal elite and a man of the people.kle4 said:
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)
Well I was recently upgraded to upper class by some friends (they were doing a quiz and it asked them how many upper class people they knew, for this you didn't need a title for to be upper class.)
What would Queen Mary say? Or Benny Hill?0 -
This is true - Brighton and Bristol also have two, and are notably tolerant and open-minded places.Gallowgate said:
The University's influence is no where near as strong as in cities with multiple universities, but it is still a factor. Look at Teesside. Middlesborough stands alone as the last Labour holdout. One possible factor is the university.felix said:
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.0 -
...the latter are particularly tolerant of their local Police force....WhisperingOracle said:
This is true - Brighton and Bristol also have two, and are notably tolerant and open-minded places.Gallowgate said:
The University's influence is no where near as strong as in cities with multiple universities, but it is still a factor. Look at Teesside. Middlesborough stands alone as the last Labour holdout. One possible factor is the university.felix said:
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.0 -
The British Jimmy Swaggart? Is he also a very talented pianist (gospel & honky-tonk)?Anabobazina said:
The Boffin' Boffin? – is this the very same Professor Ferguson who filled the airwaves preaching to his subjects only to then sneak out to get his end away with a blonde lady?Leon said:
Got a lot of respect for Neil Ferguson. His ‘500,000 deaths’ quote - which received much derision on here - turned out to be bang on: as a reasonable worst case scenario for UK Covid with no mitigationMaffew said:
I thought Neil Ferguson had avoided the doom porn and for most of this year was saying once vaccination is complete we're pretty much done in the UK and would just have to live with flu-level outbreaks.Selebian said:
Will this do?MaxPB said:Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.
The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.rottenborough said:Even the Modeller of Doom admits this is nearly over.
Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn
He then got death threats for a year. Now he’s willing to dial down the doom1 -
..the new Bill being a slightly different and national issue, ofcourse..felix said:
...the latter are particularly tolerant of their local Police force....WhisperingOracle said:
This is true - Brighton and Bristol also have two, and are notably tolerant and open-minded places.Gallowgate said:
The University's influence is no where near as strong as in cities with multiple universities, but it is still a factor. Look at Teesside. Middlesborough stands alone as the last Labour holdout. One possible factor is the university.felix said:
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.0 -
I've asked that she reconsiders and get back to me in a few days. Beyond this I cannot see what else I can do. Basically the care homes (and thousands of others across the country no doubt) are charging £1000 + + per week to keep old folk hostage. They burble on about their business indemnity assurance. The quality of life of the resident is not paramount it seems.noneoftheabove said:
That really is wilful incompetence. If there is any escalation procedure beyond the manager someone will hopefully see sense.Stocky said:
Yes, I quoted that very passage to the care home manager this afternoon and got nowhere. Because both of the named visitors are not ill they cannot be replaced, she said.noneoftheabove said:
Its allowed according to this:Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visiting-care-homes-during-coronavirus/update-on-policies-for-visiting-arrangements-in-care-homes
"It is important that the named visitors remain the same people as far as possible. This is important in reducing the risk of transmission, by limiting the number of different people coming into the care home from the community. However, we recognise that there will be situations in which a named visitor cannot continue to visit (for example because of illness). We advise care homes and families to take a pragmatic approach, with the aim of minimising change wherever possible."
The problem, to be fair, is that the government makes out that it is doing this that and the other to improve things but this is disingenuous - they have kicked the issue to the individual care homes, who are left interpreting guidelines as they see fit. And they have the power to do this with no-one to appeal to. They take the most cautious interpretation of the government guidelines that it is possible to take - every time.
I wrote a letter to Helen Whateley months ago about the way care home residents are being treated and didn't even get the courtesy of a reply.1 -
If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.3 -
And people who have the temerity to need an emergency ambulance while they are wanting to save the world. Those people stamping on a statue that was pulled down showed the kind of beast these people will unleash if they ever get the upper hand. They'll be little tolerance for those that wont fall in line.felix said:
...the latter are particularly tolerant of their local Police force....WhisperingOracle said:
This is true - Brighton and Bristol also have two, and are notably tolerant and open-minded places.Gallowgate said:
The University's influence is no where near as strong as in cities with multiple universities, but it is still a factor. Look at Teesside. Middlesborough stands alone as the last Labour holdout. One possible factor is the university.felix said:
I think most of it's gone now. I think Gallowgate may be wrong - the university influence is not as strong - there are a kot of thrifty homeowners there these days. As he says the locals might give a clue but wallpaper gate has come at the wrong time.CursingStone said:
I have lived in Pennywell, was like a series of scenes off Shameless.Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.1 -
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.2 -
Are figleafs vegan? I'm guessing they are!Quincel said:
I think you just want to go to a den of debauchery, the vegan part of your proposal is simply a figleaf.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Vegan strip clubs?Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
There is of course not many artisan bakers or organic cyclist cafes in Newcastle City Centre either.
If vegans REALLY want the world to get with the program, they should consider this option?
Damn sight more appealing than your average vegan cafe!
There's an actual vegan strip club in Portland, Oregon (unless Trumpsky' agents provocateurs trashed it) though have never been able to figure out, are the customers vegan, or the strippers, or both?
Sounds like a job for the PB dynamic duo of Leon & TSE.0 -
FPT - from reading @TheJezziah many posts I can only conclude he gets paid every time he uses "racist" or "racism".0
-
I'm looking forward to it.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
Staunch Unionist Boris Johnson will save the Union, he'll be front and centre of indyref2.
Professionally speaking being in charge of the firm's Scottish Independence planning is a headache I could do without.
Although it will make me feel less guilty about being on PB during work hours.0 -
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.1 -
Entirely off thread, has anyone been following the Dalian Atkinson trial? I had no idea he'd been killed. All sounds a trifle, er, odd.1
-
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.0 -
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.0 -
Yes and odd isn't the adjective I would use.Cookie said:Entirely off thread, has anyone been following the Dalian Atkinson trial? I had no idea he'd been killed. All sounds a trifle, er, odd.
0 -
Part of me agrees. But the underlying supplementary polling recently has given me some reason to think it would be a no vote.WhisperingOracle said:
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
There was a fascinating focus group today for the times, with people giving SNP their vote because they “liked Sturgeon”, but recoiled in horror at the thought that it may bring about another referendum
(Which also begs the question - what on earth have they missed for the last 14 years)0 -
Star Sports has uploaded a new The Polling Station video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmQ9108NZT4
Starts by discussing Hartlepool. Not watched the rest yet. Half an hour long.0 -
What is your take on it @TSE?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes and odd isn't the adjective I would use.Cookie said:Entirely off thread, has anyone been following the Dalian Atkinson trial? I had no idea he'd been killed. All sounds a trifle, er, odd.
0 -
That the accused police officers were trained by Derek Chauvin.MrEd said:
What is your take on it @TSE?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes and odd isn't the adjective I would use.Cookie said:Entirely off thread, has anyone been following the Dalian Atkinson trial? I had no idea he'd been killed. All sounds a trifle, er, odd.
0 -
This from Sky today explains that that a quick indyref2 is not so popularRazedabode said:
Part of me agrees. But the underlying supplementary polling recently has given me some reason to think it would be a no vote.WhisperingOracle said:
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
There was a fascinating focus group today for the times, with people giving SNP their vote because they “liked Sturgeon”, but recoiled in horror at the thought that it may bring about another referendum
(Which also begs the question - what on earth have they missed for the last 14 years)
http://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-122964850 -
Ok. I saw the BBC report on it. Didn't look good to put it mildly.TheScreamingEagles said:
That the accused police officers were trained by Derek Chauvin.MrEd said:
What is your take on it @TSE?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes and odd isn't the adjective I would use.Cookie said:Entirely off thread, has anyone been following the Dalian Atkinson trial? I had no idea he'd been killed. All sounds a trifle, er, odd.
0 -
Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other1 -
There was an article in the Speccy about this - a poll was done on the extent to which Scots agree with various statement. Long and short of it, Scots don't believe they are being subsidised by the rest of us.squareroot2 said:
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
I have a vague nostalgia for the Britain of my youth, when you could comfortably think of the Highlands of Scotland as just the top end of your country, rather than an entirely foreign country ruled by a hostile power who would be rather happy to see the border closed, who are trying to rewrite history with England as the villains and who give every impression of being keen to ally with anyone as long as it would be against the English. Is Scotland as a whole still welcoming to English people, I wonder? Oh well. Those days are gone, and I don't think they can be brought back.
It's going to be a bloody nuisance redesigning the flag though.0 -
Longer term looks closer (5 years or so..)Big_G_NorthWales said:
This from Sky today explains that that a quick indyref2 is not so popularRazedabode said:
Part of me agrees. But the underlying supplementary polling recently has given me some reason to think it would be a no vote.WhisperingOracle said:
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
There was a fascinating focus group today for the times, with people giving SNP their vote because they “liked Sturgeon”, but recoiled in horror at the thought that it may bring about another referendum
(Which also begs the question - what on earth have they missed for the last 14 years)
http://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485
I think Sturgeon will be under pressure to go for 2022, whilst the economy recovers. There’s too large a part of her party that wants the Indy vote regardless of context..0 -
I can’t reconcile this with the recent national polling (unless they are piling the votes up elsewhere)TheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other0 -
Naught but Tory FAKE NEWS!TheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other0 -
The nightmare is coming true for Labour, as warned by the Guardian, et al. The SNP are already the Scottish party, the Tories are becoming the party of EnglandTheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other0 -
If he cannot beat Ross he is rubbish.DavidL said:
I had thought that Sarwar just might deliver second place behind the SNP. That is not what the polling is showing now though.CursingStone said:
If there's no Scotland progress I would be saying more a solid D. IDS was dumped for a much much better performance than this.DavidL said:So the scores on the doors for SKS are likely to be:
Overall council seats, a bit of a wash, not much change either way.
Hartlepool a loss.
London a clear win, probably not on the first count.
Scotland small progress
Wales small retreat, not nearly as bad as it looked a month ago
West Midlands Mayor, a bit of a thumping.
Teeside Mayor probably a loss.
Greater Manchester Mayor, a clear win.
It's not a great scorecard, is it? More of a C- than a C+ I would say.1 -
IIRC there has been speculation they are piling up votes in Southern and coastal seats, some formerly quite strongly Tory.Razedabode said:
I can’t reconcile this with the recent national polling (unless they are piling the votes up elsewhere)TheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
This is interesting, because parts of the Tories old "Blue Wall" may also be teetering and looking weaker, at the same time as Labour has its troubles.0 -
What Scotch poll are we talking about? Most recent I can find doesn't look that good for indyCookie said:
There was an article in the Speccy about this - a poll was done on the extent to which Scots agree with various statement. Long and short of it, Scots don't believe they are being subsidised by the rest of us.squareroot2 said:
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
I have a vague nostalgia for the Britain of my youth, when you could comfortably think of the Highlands of Scotland as just the top end of your country, rather than an entirely foreign country ruled by a hostile power who would be rather happy to see the border closed, who are trying to rewrite history with England as the villains and who give every impression of being keen to ally with anyone as long as it would be against the English. Is Scotland as a whole still welcoming to English people, I wonder? Oh well. Those days are gone, and I don't think they can be brought back.
It's going to be a bloody nuisance redesigning the flag though.
https://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-122964850 -
No, that's @TheScreamingEaglesMalmesbury said:
Two flags plus a portrait of The Leader*? Dura Ace will spontaneously combust....Nigelb said:
And why is it on an easel ?DavidL said:
It's a weird picture of Macron. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough is the posture.williamglenn said:If you’re an MP for La République en Marche, a flag in the background isn’t sufficient.
Has he just finished a painting-by-numbers Macron ?
Very odd.
*Maybe he has a portrait of Petain on the flip side?
0 -
Anything approaching the polling should be the end of Starmer. You really can't lose your safest seats to an 'unpopular' and 'sleazy' government in such a substantial manner. There's probably only a handful of Labour MPs that could feel remotely 'safe' if the polling is borne out.TheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
(I don't really think it'll be quite so bad for Labour, and I think Starmer will somehow battle on.)0 -
She is a 'canny' politician and with this poll at 50/50 and yesterday's with no leading 53/47 I expect her to use covid recovery as a reason to delay, hoping the figures move towards independence which they are not at presentRazedabode said:
Longer term looks closer (5 years or so..)Big_G_NorthWales said:
This from Sky today explains that that a quick indyref2 is not so popularRazedabode said:
Part of me agrees. But the underlying supplementary polling recently has given me some reason to think it would be a no vote.WhisperingOracle said:
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
There was a fascinating focus group today for the times, with people giving SNP their vote because they “liked Sturgeon”, but recoiled in horror at the thought that it may bring about another referendum
(Which also begs the question - what on earth have they missed for the last 14 years)
http://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485
I think Sturgeon will be under pressure to go for 2022, whilst the economy recovers. There’s too large a part of her party that wants the Indy vote regardless of context..
Furthermore, there are lots of hurdles for her to go through and not just Boris, but Westminster itself
And I have to say I do believe covid and Brexit has made it very winnable for the union whenever it happens, if it does0 -
Flag will be kept. Blue to represent the seaCookie said:
There was an article in the Speccy about this - a poll was done on the extent to which Scots agree with various statement. Long and short of it, Scots don't believe they are being subsidised by the rest of us.squareroot2 said:
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
I have a vague nostalgia for the Britain of my youth, when you could comfortably think of the Highlands of Scotland as just the top end of your country, rather than an entirely foreign country ruled by a hostile power who would be rather happy to see the border closed, who are trying to rewrite history with England as the villains and who give every impression of being keen to ally with anyone as long as it would be against the English. Is Scotland as a whole still welcoming to English people, I wonder? Oh well. Those days are gone, and I don't think they can be brought back.
It's going to be a bloody nuisance redesigning the flag though.0 -
Stuff like people not understanding the figure is an estimate?contrarian said:
So much for the immense betting implications then.TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks, your assertion last night was wrong then.contrarian said:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.TheScreamingEagles said:
My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.contrarian said:
Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?TheScreamingEagles said:
PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.contrarian said:Hartlepool Shmartlepool.
The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/
PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.
There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.
CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'
It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.
What's the big deal?
The 154m Census number is based on those that definitively reported having voted, you forget the 36m that didn't respond.
As the Census bureau notes.
The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration.
With respect I did not make any claims about the veracity of the document, merely that the apparent discrepancy is being used by figures on the right to keep the 'stolen' election narrative going.
I know you and almost everybody on here would not like to face up to the fact that more than 70% of republican voters still don't think Biden got enough legit votes to win. But its true, they don't. And stuff like this is used to keep that notion going.1 -
Yes. Keep. Best flag in the world. Brilliant brandingkle4 said:
Flag will be kept. Blue to represent the seaCookie said:
There was an article in the Speccy about this - a poll was done on the extent to which Scots agree with various statement. Long and short of it, Scots don't believe they are being subsidised by the rest of us.squareroot2 said:
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
I have a vague nostalgia for the Britain of my youth, when you could comfortably think of the Highlands of Scotland as just the top end of your country, rather than an entirely foreign country ruled by a hostile power who would be rather happy to see the border closed, who are trying to rewrite history with England as the villains and who give every impression of being keen to ally with anyone as long as it would be against the English. Is Scotland as a whole still welcoming to English people, I wonder? Oh well. Those days are gone, and I don't think they can be brought back.
It's going to be a bloody nuisance redesigning the flag though.2 -
It's a while since any NE seat was amongst Labour's safest.Omnium said:
Anything approaching the polling should be the end of Starmer. You really can't lose your safest seats to an 'unpopular' and 'sleazy' government in such a substantial manner. There's probably only a handful of Labour MPs that could feel remotely 'safe' if the polling is borne out.TheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
(I don't really think it'll be quite so bad for Labour, and I think Starmer will somehow battle on.)1 -
I was in Scotland a couple of years ago and found it remarkably welcoming - even in little out-of-the-way pubs where you'd ordinarily expect to be silently glowered at by the locals as you shuffle to the bar.Cookie said:
There was an article in the Speccy about this - a poll was done on the extent to which Scots agree with various statement. Long and short of it, Scots don't believe they are being subsidised by the rest of us.squareroot2 said:
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
I have a vague nostalgia for the Britain of my youth, when you could comfortably think of the Highlands of Scotland as just the top end of your country, rather than an entirely foreign country ruled by a hostile power who would be rather happy to see the border closed, who are trying to rewrite history with England as the villains and who give every impression of being keen to ally with anyone as long as it would be against the English. Is Scotland as a whole still welcoming to English people, I wonder? Oh well. Those days are gone, and I don't think they can be brought back.
It's going to be a bloody nuisance redesigning the flag though.0 -
Today's Sky poll as quoted was by OpiniumIshmaelZ said:
What Scotch poll are we talking about? Most recent I can find doesn't look that good for indyCookie said:
There was an article in the Speccy about this - a poll was done on the extent to which Scots agree with various statement. Long and short of it, Scots don't believe they are being subsidised by the rest of us.squareroot2 said:
Make them see the reality of not being subsidised by the rest of the UK FIRSTWhisperingOracle said:
I'd hate to see Scotland go.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
I have a vague nostalgia for the Britain of my youth, when you could comfortably think of the Highlands of Scotland as just the top end of your country, rather than an entirely foreign country ruled by a hostile power who would be rather happy to see the border closed, who are trying to rewrite history with England as the villains and who give every impression of being keen to ally with anyone as long as it would be against the English. Is Scotland as a whole still welcoming to English people, I wonder? Oh well. Those days are gone, and I don't think they can be brought back.
It's going to be a bloody nuisance redesigning the flag though.
https://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-122964850 -
For sure. We should save our derision for the moron who went touting around a prediction of two million dead Brits.Leon said:
Got a lot of respect for Neil Ferguson. His ‘500,000 deaths’ quote - which received much derision on here - turned out to be bang on: as a reasonable worst case scenario for UK Covid with no mitigationMaffew said:
I thought Neil Ferguson had avoided the doom porn and for most of this year was saying once vaccination is complete we're pretty much done in the UK and would just have to live with flu-level outbreaks.Selebian said:
Will this do?MaxPB said:Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.
The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.rottenborough said:Even the Modeller of Doom admits this is nearly over.
Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn
He then got death threats for a year. Now he’s willing to dial down the doom
0 -
Yes - I think so. We’re in a holding pattern for the foreseeable.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a 'canny' politician and with this poll at 50/50 and yesterday's with no leading 53/47 I expect her to use covid recovery as a reason to delay, hoping the figures move towards independence which they are not at presentRazedabode said:
Longer term looks closer (5 years or so..)Big_G_NorthWales said:
This from Sky today explains that that a quick indyref2 is not so popularRazedabode said:
Part of me agrees. But the underlying supplementary polling recently has given me some reason to think it would be a no vote.WhisperingOracle said:
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
There was a fascinating focus group today for the times, with people giving SNP their vote because they “liked Sturgeon”, but recoiled in horror at the thought that it may bring about another referendum
(Which also begs the question - what on earth have they missed for the last 14 years)
http://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485
I think Sturgeon will be under pressure to go for 2022, whilst the economy recovers. There’s too large a part of her party that wants the Indy vote regardless of context..
Furthermore, there are lots of hurdles for her to go through and not just Boris, but Westminster itself
And I have to say I do believe covid and Brexit has made it very winnable for the union whenever it happens, if it does
I also thought it was interesting - in the context of Scottish identify rising - is that English identity is on the rise (particularly in Hartlepool). Tony Blair is convinced devolution prevented breakup earlier, but I think it’s eroded a UK sense of identity and turbo charged others..
It may be Leon is right and that the tories are remoulding themselves into the party of England (which tbh is what I think Brexiters wanted all along)0 -
Just tell them one of them is no longer able to travel , feel it is far too much for them and stressing them out and making them ill. Get GP to write a letter. Bloody jobsworths.Stocky said:
Yes, I quoted that very passage to the care home manager this afternoon and got nowhere. Because both of the named visitors are not ill they cannot be replaced, she said.noneoftheabove said:
Its allowed according to this:Stocky said:Care home update re: my poor mum.
Here we go again. Government announces great news that prisoners (sorry, residents) can be allowed outside the home without having to quarantine on return to the home.
Firstly, that implies that residents have up to now been able to leave the home albeit with quarantine on return. This is not true. (Plus, as an aside, residents are basically in quarantine in a care home anyway aren't they?)
Secondly, the wonderful new guidance is now out in writing and it states that only the two current nominated visitors are to be allowed to take the resident away for a trip out thus meaning that for many families, such as ours, who have nominated two infirm and elderly family members as nominated visitors (as the younger relatives (like me) are best suited to see relative outdoors) are in effect excluded because the nominated visitors we chose are too frail to push my mum in her wheelchair. So no trips out for mum then.
I've asked the care home to switch one of the nominated visitors to me instead and they have refused because "the government says this is not allowed".
Words fail me.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visiting-care-homes-during-coronavirus/update-on-policies-for-visiting-arrangements-in-care-homes
"It is important that the named visitors remain the same people as far as possible. This is important in reducing the risk of transmission, by limiting the number of different people coming into the care home from the community. However, we recognise that there will be situations in which a named visitor cannot continue to visit (for example because of illness). We advise care homes and families to take a pragmatic approach, with the aim of minimising change wherever possible."1 -
Boris will say No, but in the end there will be Sindyref2, as there was a 2nd Quebec vote. Latter half of this decade, nearer 2030, methinks (respecting the ‘generation’ argument but acknowledging Scottish democracy)Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a 'canny' politician and with this poll at 50/50 and yesterday's with no leading 53/47 I expect her to use covid recovery as a reason to delay, hoping the figures move towards independence which they are not at presentRazedabode said:
Longer term looks closer (5 years or so..)Big_G_NorthWales said:
This from Sky today explains that that a quick indyref2 is not so popularRazedabode said:
Part of me agrees. But the underlying supplementary polling recently has given me some reason to think it would be a no vote.WhisperingOracle said:
As long as BJ is there, what worries me is that it shouldn't be too difficult.Razedabode said:
They have to win the thing first..Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.
There was a fascinating focus group today for the times, with people giving SNP their vote because they “liked Sturgeon”, but recoiled in horror at the thought that it may bring about another referendum
(Which also begs the question - what on earth have they missed for the last 14 years)
http://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485
I think Sturgeon will be under pressure to go for 2022, whilst the economy recovers. There’s too large a part of her party that wants the Indy vote regardless of context..
Furthermore, there are lots of hurdles for her to go through and not just Boris, but Westminster itself
And I have to say I do believe covid and Brexit has made it very winnable for the union whenever it happens, if it does
In the meantime Unionists need to get some proper arguments above and beyond Fear, and Boris needs to Establish a Constitutional Convention so Scots - and Brits - know who is voting for exactly what, why, and when2 -
Step back, make a cup of tea, and consider whether your party’s actions have inexorably driven us towards this sorry state of affairs.Casino_Royale said:If that Scottish poll is right it's a landslide for nationalist parties and we're getting a second IndyRef. The only question is how and when.
God save us.1 -
@BallotBoxScotGallowgate said:
So that's 54% for Indy in the Constituency vote and 54% for Indy in the List vote.Scott_xP said:Final YouGov/Times Scottish Parliament voting intention (2-4 May)
CONSTITUENCY
SNP 52% (+3 from 16-20 April)
Con 20% (-1)
Lab 19% (-2)
LD 6% (nc)
Green 2% (+1)
REGIONAL LIST
SNP 38% (-1)
Con 22% (nc)
Lab 16% (-1)
Green 13% (+3)
LD 5% (nc)
Alba 3% (+1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/04/scottish-voting-intention-snp-52-con-20-lab-19-2-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=final_call_Scotland_VI_May_2021 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1389615995074011139/photo/1
Any idea what that equates to in terms of seats?
Projecting YouGov 2 - 4 May into seats (changes vs 16 - 20 Apr / vs 2016):
SNP ~ 70 (+2 / +7)
Conservative ~ 25 (-2 / -6)
Labour ~ 18 (-1 / -6)
Green ~ 12 (+1 / +6)
Lib Dem ~ 4 (nc / -1)
Caveats: http://ballotbox.scot/projections0 -
From the 6th of July to the 18th of August Scotland had 1 death on the 28 day measure.Philip_Thompson said:Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?
That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?
So we are still a few weeks away from that level in the UK.0 -
Sure, but in the 90s this seat was 60% Labour.dixiedean said:
It's a while since any NE seat was amongst Labour's safest.Omnium said:
Anything approaching the polling should be the end of Starmer. You really can't lose your safest seats to an 'unpopular' and 'sleazy' government in such a substantial manner. There's probably only a handful of Labour MPs that could feel remotely 'safe' if the polling is borne out.TheScreamingEagles said:Private polling klaxon.
Labour set for huge election defeat in Hartlepool, internal polling suggests
Exclusive: Party’s own figures show only 40% of previous supporters pledge to back its candidate this time
Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear an historic Conservative victory.
Labour insiders said that polling from its ground campaign in the town showed that only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams.
Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local elections since 1973.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
(I don't really think it'll be quite so bad for Labour, and I think Starmer will somehow battle on.)
Mandelson found himself a very safe seat.
To lose this by (what appears to be) a significant margin when in opposition will be a howler.1 -
The test is whether you’d see a home of John Lewis decor and furnishings as a nightmare?TheScreamingEagles said:
Me.kle4 said:
No doubt. Who?TheScreamingEagles said:
Some of us are metropolitan liberal elite and a man of the people.kle4 said:
It's a state of mind, not geography.Gallowgate said:
"Metropolitan liberal elite" is relative, of course.SandyRentool said:
Gentrified??? Metropolitan liberal elite???Gallowgate said:
I'm not convinced. Sunderland Central is a university seat after all and is being gentrified, albeit slowly (believe it or not). It also contains the more middle class metropolitan liberal elite parts of Sunderland.felix said:
I do think my home town seat of Sunderland central could go blue for the first time since 1963!dixiedean said:
Well indeed. Analogous to Tyne and Wear. Massive swings to the Tories all this century has left 12 out of 12 Labour seats much more efficiently won.felix said:
I actually doubt your last point and wrt the Home counties not sure they would win much in a GE here - potential to make the Tory vote even more efficient.ping said:
I agree. Starmer’s picking up votes in blue-remainia, isn’t he?dixiedean said:
And yet Khan is down.Pagan2 said:
Possibly places where they already weigh the labour vote like londonping said:Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?
I don’t get it.
Has anyone dug into the subsamples?
My money's on the Home Counties.
Labour could put in a surprisingly good performance in Chesham & Amersham.
Plus Sunderland/Tyne and Wear generally hasn't exactly been given a ton of Tory red meat to chew on like Teesside.
The council elections on Thursday should be informative.
You'll have to let me know where to find the artisan bakers and organic cyclist cafes in Sunderland city centre...
Same with being a man of the people (gender and/or actualy connection with 'the people' not required)
Well I was recently upgraded to upper class by some friends (they were doing a quiz and it asked them how many upper class people they knew, for this you didn't need a title for to be upper class.)0
