The case for Labour making an electoral pact – politicalbetting.com

Oh was that a first?

Turns it was and my first in ages.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh was that a first?

Turns it was and my first in ages.

That’s as unconvincing...

Transparency, accountability, honesty, integrity, standards - these things are not encumbent on a government ***only if it is unpopular***. They are essential features of a healthy democracy.

That I should even have to point this out to a former minister is shameful.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1393917412714721280

https://twitter.com/Edwina_Currie/status/1393661683789406211

Philip_Thompson said:

I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.

FPT

Fascinating to read the dismantling of David Cameron's reputation.

The same will happen to Boris Johnson one day ...

It's odd to see the vilification of Cameron now - at the time, he was considered a political genius and let's not forget not only did he get the Conservatives back into power, he won a majority for the first time in 23 years and smashed the party's principal opponents.

None of that matters now.

History has two fates for ex-PMs, they get forgotten or they get rehabilitated. In both cases, it needs for them to be away from the public eye for a while.

Afternoon all

Thanks for the piece, @tlg86.

At the moment, as an ex-LD member, I would still vote LD and I would rather entrust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty saw than vote for either Johnson or Starmer.

As far as Woking is concerned, Labour contested the County division of Goldsworth East and Horsell Village (the Greens did not). The LDs won the seat by 200 votes defeating the Deputy Leader of the Council but Labour polled 510 votes. Had Labour not stood, how many of those 510 would have voted LD or not bothered - I can't say.

You can look across Surrey for all sorts of examples where non-Conservative parties standing against each other helped the Conservatives hold or win a seat and if that's a problem at local level, how much greater a problem would it be at a GE?

IF you want a pact, it has to be more than an electoral arrangement. It has to be the legislative programme for the first year of a non-Conservative Government (perhaps with electoral reform).

I can't see that happening at this time. It will only happen when Labour ceases to be the viable alternative Government or when Labour accepts it cannot win a majority under the current conditions. After 1992, Labour thought they could win because they had done remarkably well (even if not well enough and a disappointment in the end) to reduce the Conservative majority from 101 to 21.

Panic buying in Taiwan


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.

Woking Borough Council has long been one of the most incompetent (and so it’s been whispered, corrupt) LA’s in the country. Horsell Tory voters staying at home and / or giving the local Tory councillors a kicking by voting Lib Dem is one thing. It’s quite another to think Woking voters will allow this seat to flip in the name of allowing a Labour government and Prime Minister.

A fab piece. And yes of course there should be an electoral pact. There is a problem though - Labour are an AND party. Unless you follow all aspects of the orthodoxy - this AND this AND this etc you will not be considered anything but a traitor.

That's inside the Labour party - how is it to form an alliance with other parties when it cannot form alliances with itself?

agingjb2 said:

Since Labour are implacably opposed to electoral reform (as are the Tories), I shall not vote Labour (or Tory).

Reform (which I doubt will ever happen) would be better than some flaky pact.

I assume you want electoral reform on principle. It seems to me that first past the post might be the only thing keeping the Lib Dems alive.

Superb piece - thanks.

moonshine said:

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.

Woking Borough Council has long been one of the most incompetent (and so it’s been whispered, corrupt) LA’s in the country. Horsell Tory voters staying at home and / or giving the local Tory councillors a kicking by voting Lib Dem is one thing. It’s quite another to think Woking voters will allow this seat to flip in the name of allowing a Labour government and Prime Minister.

I haven't voted Tory in a Woking Borough Council election since... I actually can't remember it's been that long!

In a way, I'm surprised the Tories haven't been given a bigger kicking from the voters of Woking.

Part of my motivation for writing this piece is that I've spent all my 34 years in a seats considered fairly safe for the Tories. I'd be intrigued to see how things would play out if it was considered to be in play.

The Progressive Alliance "won" GE2019, getting over 50% of the vote UK-wide.

I live a wordy header, but sometimes it is also nice to get a data heavy header like this - much appreciated.

NickPalmer said:

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.

I can give some evidence on this. In borough elections in my area (next to Guildford) where neither Labour nor Libdems put up a full slate in multi-member wards and there was some effort (a Progress newspaper) urging support for both, my impression is that around 50% of LibDems voted Labour with their second vote and around 5% voted Conservative (the rest didn't use their second vote). My impression is that Labour voters split 66% for LibDems, and virtually 0% for Tories. So it was helpful for both but one should not assume that one can simply move voters en masse from one column to the next.

The proportions might well be different in a Labour-dominated area, where LibDems might shift more to Tories as the joint opposition (Greens less so, I think). On the other hand, an explicit pact endorsed by both/all leaderships would be stronger than if voters are left to figure it out.

I'm in favour. But the deal should provide a quid pro quo for the constituency party making the sacrifice - the party that benefits should agree to do their best to help them gain some local council seats in the same area that they wouldn't otherwise have won. It's not realistic to expect constituency party X to stand down in return for a reciprocal concession in Y 100 miles away.

Which is how the LibDems and Greens have worked it, with the Green parties that helped the LibDems in the GE (not that it did them much good) often being given free runs at council level next time around.

RochdalePioneers said:

A fab piece. And yes of course there should be an electoral pact. There is a problem though - Labour are an AND party. Unless you follow all aspects of the orthodoxy - this AND this AND this etc you will not be considered anything but a traitor.

That's inside the Labour party - how is it to form an alliance with other parties when it cannot form alliances with itself?

That's trivially untrue - we see cases every day of Labour MPs disagreeing with each other on all sorts of things, let alone individual members. I'm CLP chair and a Corbynite member of Momentum. Our PPC was and probably will be a Blairite. Do either of us fret about it? Nah, life's too short.

Without wanting to be rude, you're perhaps biased because IIRC you quit Labour to campaign for the LibDems, then changed your mind and ran into the "hasn't campaigned for another party for 3 years" rule. That's different - parties are fussy about people constantly switching in and out. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but anyway it's not the same as being unwilling to cooperate.

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Panic buying in Taiwan


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us

I’m still sitting on my toilet roll pile from first time around

Sounds uncomfortable and potentially unstable. Have you thought of moving to a chair?

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Panic buying in Taiwan


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/lockdowns-and-panic-buying-in-taiwan-as-covid-cases-rise


Quite extraordinary that we are 18 months into this wretched business and it can still do this to us

I’m still sitting on my toilet roll pile from first time around

That sounds as if it requires fairly careful aim to thread the hole in the stack of tubes...

(Entry for PB tasteless competition)

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

alex_ said:

Can somebody explain this "surge vaccination" idea in Bolton - it doesn't obviously make any sense to me and could easily be counter productive?

Vaccinations aren't supposed to convey much, if any, protection for 2-3 weeks until after the jab, although large numbers of people aren't aware of that. So introducing such a programme specifically in a current "hotspot" area could easily actually be throwing fuel on to the fire. And if the transmissibility is as high as the scientists are said to be "fearing", then it will spread way beyond the immediate area long before any vaccines are likely to have any effect.

Or have i misunderstood and the "surge vaccinations" are actually 2nd doses which i guess work in a different way and more rapidly?

It takes a few weeks for the vaccine to take effect but it also takes weeks for covid to pass through one infection cycle to the next and to the next.

I do hope that its being emphasised that vaccination does not have an immediate effect.

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

IanB2 said:

NickPalmer said:

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I find it very hubristic to assume that the Lib Dems would automatically vote Labour over Tory. Many would, but others wouldn't.

Personally speaking I could easily be a Lib Dem voters, especially orange book, but not Labour.

In 1983 didn't the opinion polls show that most Alliance voters preferred a Thatcher government over a Foot one? So quite possibly the Alliance far from splitting the "anti-Conservative" vote could have split the anti-Foot vote too.

Very fair points - my Horsell example (and others in Surrey) show that the Lib Dems might do well in such an arrangement. I'm less sure about the opposite being true.

On 1983, for sure it's foolish to think that the SDP voters would have preferred Labour to the Conservatives. But it's undoubtedly true that by 1992, voters were very much voting against the Tories.

I can give some evidence on this. In borough elections in my area (next to Guildford) where neither Labour nor Libdems put up a full slate in multi-member wards and there was some effort (a Progress newspaper) urging support for both, my impression is that around 50% of LibDems voted Labour with their second vote and around 5% voted Conservative (the rest didn't use their second vote). My impression is that Labour voters split 66% for LibDems, and virtually 0% for Tories. So it was helpful for both but one should not assume that one can simply move voters en masse from one column to the next.

The proportions might well be different in a Labour-dominated area, where LibDems might shift more to Tories as the joint opposition (Greens less so, I think). On the other hand, an explicit pact endorsed by both/all leaderships would be stronger than if voters are left to figure it out.

I'm in favour. But the deal should provide a quid pro quo for the constituency party making the sacrifice - the party that benefits should agree to do their best to help them gain some local council seats in the same area that they wouldn't otherwise have won. It's not realistic to expect constituency party X to stand down in return for a reciprocal concession in Y 100 miles away.

Which is how the LibDems and Greens have worked it, with the Green parties that helped the LibDems in the GE (not that it did them much good) often being given free runs at council level next time around.

And the spin off from this is that the Green Party gets an incredible write-up here on PB, telling the world that they are on the point of becoming the country's third party.....

PamelaW said:

I see Labour not standing for Westminster as impossible at the the next GE as they need to lose again quite comfortably (say no more than 250 seats) and only it that were to happen, would they then realize they cannot win again on their own and consider this course in the subsequent GE.

That being said, another option for Labour perhaps at next GE, is a "paper candidate" whereby candidates stand in hopeless third or fourth place seats and are nor supported in the campaign.

The last already happens.

As it does for all parties.

Looking ahead to ‘22 and ‘24, what do Republicans think the party’s strategy should be?

53% say the party needs to focus on message and ideas to win over more voters, but 47% say the GOP already has enough voters and should focus on pushing for changes to voting rules instead.

https://twitter.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1393938110426275840

another_richard said:

Leon said:

I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

It seems to be some form of divine personal retribution.

Have you had a past life in which you were very wicked ?

Maybe he was tempting fate by going on about shite Scottish weather? It's sunny, blue skies and fluffy clouds like a Smash TV commercial of the 1970s.

another_richard said:

Leon said:

I am happy to report that the bizarre, unprecedented interlude of so-called "sunshine", a lurid, gaudy form of light which causes some people to take off their scarves - I even saw someone smile - has now been rightly abandoned, and we have returned to 13C, leaden skies, and cold, driving rain

It seems to be some form of divine personal retribution.

Have you had a past life in which you were very wicked ?

It's even WORSE in Ventnor. 12C and rain as against 13C and rain

And it's shit right across northern Europe, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Stockholm: rain and cold

Northern Europe is being punished collectively


Brussels for the next 14 days:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2800866

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

Taz said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.

It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

Arrest and prosecute, hard

Leon said:

Taz said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.

It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

Arrest and prosecute, hard

Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20

@TimSpector

Despite scares of the latest variant of concern running wild - our data show no increases for the last few days and risks at an individual level still very low - all thanks to vaccination which is reducing infections and severity as with all variants so far. Thanks for logging!

The best pact Labour could make would be the left and right of the Party. Without that they are screwed for an eternity.

Floater said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.

It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

Arrest and prosecute, hard

If only - mind you plod would be straight round after some 78 year old street preacher quoting from the bible or someone making a "hurtful" (but lawful) tweet

Boils my piss

Took them all of 5 minutes to arrest the doddery old Christian quoting the Bible. These guys are driving through Jewish districts of London demanding rape and threatening murder. FFS

Leon said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.

It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

Arrest and prosecute, hard

Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20

Or a man flying a Confederate flag, As happened in Norwich.

TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

Boris Johnson
@BorisJohnson
·
9m

United Kingdom government official
There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.

MarqueeMark said:

317 seats where the Conservatives won over 47.5% - that is the mountain. Assuming they retained no others, those seats alone allow them to go into talks and offer the NI Unionists the biggest bribe to retain power. Until that column gets significantly eroded, by The Rest coming up with attractive polices, it matters not whether they do it singly or combined.

Voters are an ornery bunch. Tell them "Here is the Anti-Tory candidate - vote for them to boot the Tories out!", a significant proportion will say "No. We don't like the result being fixed by your collusion. Go away and give me a positive reason to vote for YOU."

The solution would be to run a candidate but do absolutely no campaigning for them.

Leon said:

TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

Boris Johnson
@BorisJohnson
·
9m

United Kingdom government official
There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.

Will Starmer do likewise?

Anabobazina said:

@TimSpector

Despite scares of the latest variant of concern running wild - our data show no increases for the last few days and risks at an individual level still very low - all thanks to vaccination which is reducing infections and severity as with all variants so far. Thanks for logging!

I do wonder how much of the scares about the "indian variant" amount to

Lots of people are dying in India (although any serious outbreak in India is always going to result in lots of people dying - it's got 1.4billion people!), this variant was first identified in India, ergo we need to worry about it.

And then produce models which, like all models, have inputs which can be tweaked at will - surrounding transmissibility of variant, effectiveness of vaccine etc etc, and use them to generate "reasonable worse case scenarios" to justify caution. The reasonable worst case scenarios being defined almost entirely by the initial guesswork on variable system inputs lacking substantial evidence to justify them.

Gallowgate said:

The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

Agreed

Leon said:

TBF to Boris, he has responded with alacrity. This was just nine minutes ago

Boris Johnson
@BorisJohnson
·
9m

United Kingdom government official
There is no place for antisemitism in our society. Ahead of Shavuot, I stand with Britain’s Jews who should not have to endure the type of shameful racism we have seen today.


Those vile fuckwits in the cars are going to get banged up.

Alternatively, they are all going to be found hogtied in a field somewhere, possibly a pig farm, with those flags shoved very far and very painfully up their arses.

Leon said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.

It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

Arrest and prosecute, hard

Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20

The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"

https://twitter.com/Elad_Si/status/1393634620663640064?s=20

Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots

Gallowgate said:

The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

Utterly disgusting.

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

Your whole premise is flawed.

So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?

Probably you're talking about symptomatic infections only, but really who knows?

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

The vaccines appear to be hugely effective against serious illness.

You illustrate my point perfectly. The point is that the modellers will have looked at actual numbers backed up by scientific reasoning. And if they are respectable scientists they will have explained their reasoning and cited their evidence. People on social media just make assertions.

People on social media just make assertions

You mean like this:

probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective

Perhaps you can provide some data showing that the vaccines are 'not hugely more effective' against death than against infection.

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

Your whole premise is flawed.

So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

Your whole premise is flawed.

So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?

You seem obsessed with the phase III trial data, and not with the huge test in millions of people in the real world. There is now much more evidence of real world protection against disease and against spread. Why not update your knowledge?

Taz said:

Gallowgate said:

The videos from Golders Green are genuinely terrifying. Just awful.

Utterly disgusting.

I'm pretty sure they are going to jail. Slam dunk. Filmed without masks and with reg plates visible.

isam said:

Leon said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/gunnerpunner/status/1393920559243829248

Horrifying stuff. Quadruply worse because it's on Finchley road, one of the main places of residence for British Jews

It’s vile, it’s disgusting. You can support the Palestinian cause without resorting to such foul anti Semitic slurs.

It's outrageous. And it is an obvious threat of great violence, with a specific target: so it is surely illegal

And they have been filmed and the Met Police can identify them by the Car Reg

Arrest and prosecute, hard

Here is a clearer photo. The number plate is entirely visible. No reason not to arrest and prosecute

https://twitter.com/AAPrager/status/1393926282711347207?s=20

The similar posts beneath are unreal - the megaphone shouting "F the Jews" and talking of rape, the three young boys, one with the Israeli flag on the sole of his shoes, saying "Israel is not real"

https://twitter.com/Elad_Si/status/1393634620663640064?s=20

Incredible scenes, one of the major unthought of down sides of multiculturalism. The people who introduced the concept - Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester etc - arrogantly thought that the commonwealth immigrants and their descendants would be so happy to be called British they'd forget their roots

I dare say a few hearty white Englishmen who can trace their ancestry back to Ethelred aren't wholly immune from such bigotry.

turbotubbs said:

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

Your whole premise is flawed.

So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Chris said:

another_richard said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I saw the paranoia on the modelling earlier.
People do know that when they're demanding answers like "what are they assuming?!?", the models are published on line, with the assumptions up front?eg here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf )

And the models aren't firm predictions, but "if it's transmissible to this degree, or that degree, or that degree, this is what happens," "if vaccine rollout speeds are this, or if they are that..." and "If vaccine efficacy is this, or if it is that..."

... and they also have "optimistic combination" and "pessimistic combination" answers.

And I'm a bit sick of the "either the vaccine works or it doesn't" line. It's either 100% or 0%, right? Or maybe it's neither? And the degree to which it is neither is one of the factors in the models (with varying assumptions, most of which are based on published studies).

And, of course, we have the "everyone vulnerable is already vaccinated" line, ignoring that even a 20-year-old in excellent health has a greater than 1% chance of hospitalisation if infected and unvaccinated, increasing from there (so about a 1% to 2% hospitalisation chance on average of all the 30 million currently left unvaccinated - so even without breakthrough infections, that'd be 300,000-600,000 possible hospitalisations).

The implications of the assumptions lead me to assume that the chances of things going very wrong are very low, as B1.617.2 is susceptible to vaccination. But the incessant "It's all a conspiracy!", "What are they thinking!?" (go and look?), "Well, the vaccines work or they don't, right?" lines do rather pall after a while.

I mean, yes, the media are bloody awful in amplifying the most dramatic possible "coulds" and "possiblys" in trying to imply that [INSERT_GROUP] are preacing disaster, but that doesn't mean we need to fall for it every bloody time.

The 30 million unvaccinated will be predominantly under 20 so at even less risk.

Plus millions of them will already have immunity from prior infection.

I think the answer to the conundrum is undoubtedly that the modelling is more reliable than the people on social media who barely understand the basic scientific concepts and would be severaly arithmetically handicapped even if they did understand the science.

The questions are: (1) will the vaccination programme take us to herd immunity, (2) if not, how many more people will need to be infected to get us to herd immunity, and (3) what percentage of those people will be hospitalised and what percentage will die?

We don't really have the information to do more than guess at the answers to those questions. But if the Indian variant really had an R0 of 5-6, and if AstraZeneca were only 50-60% effective against infection (and that is for the original version of the virus), as trials suggest, then the answer to (1) would be "no, nothing like". In that case, the key question would be how much more effective AstraZeneca was against death than against infection. That is even less certain, but probably the answer is more effective but not hugely more effective. In which case it's not at all surprising that the modelling is suggesting the possibility of a lot more deaths.

Your numbers are wrong, AZ is around 90% effective against infection of the original strain with a large gap between doses. Efficacy with a single dose is 76% after 4 weeks. Efficacy against severe symptoms is around 95%+ with two doses and with a single dose it reduces spread by around 40% the study for two doses will be out soon but it is expected to come in around 80% reduction in spread.

Your whole premise is flawed.

So you assert, but you cite no evidence.

My numbers came from the AstraZeneca Phase III trial. Where did yours come from?

You seem obsessed with the phase III trial data, and not with the huge test in millions of people in the real world. There is now much more evidence of real world protection against disease and against spread. Why not update your knowledge?

Because he's a zero COVID zealot.

Any PB experts of the detailed demographics of Asian populations in Britain ?

AIUI in Bolton and Blackburn the Asian population is predominantly Muslim and I would assume of Pakistani heritage.

Yet both have had outbreaks of the Indian variant.

Whereas places associated with Asians of Indian heritage - Leicester, Harrow, Brent, Hounslow - have only seen increases of at most marginal levels.

Would the Asians in Bolton be possibly more Muslims of Indian heritage rather than Pakistani heritage compared with other northern mill towns ?

Or perhaps the Indian heritage population in Bolton would be more likely to live in multi generational homes than those in London and Leicester ?

Or maybe its just been 'the luck of the draw'.