Howdy, Stranger!

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

It is madness that someone who is not even an MP should be favourite for next LAB leader – political

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 23 in General
imageIt is madness that someone who is not even an MP should be favourite for next LAB leader – politicalbetting.com

I find it quite remarkable that ex-LAB MP and now Mayor of Gtr Manchester should still be the betting favourite to succeed. Starmer. For a requirement of the job is being an MP and it is not quite clear how Burnham would do that.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,961
    Test
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    edited July 23
    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime". (And he's wrong, because if they tried something of that kind the Union Jack-waving right wing press would do the same but 10 times more forcefully.)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791
    Dammit, you've stolen one of my topic ideas!

    I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    edited July 23

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    He was attending cabinet under Dave, though - which Sadiq Khan (who didn't go to Eton) isn't.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,759
    Some hospitals in Florida have more coronavirus patients than ever before. At 2 UF hospitals in Jacksonville, the number of patients has risen to more than 140, up from just 14 last month https://t.co/omMMpMlcQA
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    edited July 23
    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    edited July 23
    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?
    I don't call the UK "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,247
    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Well quite, not sure where the monarchist bile regurgitated from.

    On a more serious note the article seems to mostly about gangs and people of colour(if that is the current acceptable term). Well we are told stop and search is racist even though in glasgow it reduced white on white knife crime so we can't do that. Perhaps we should let blm take over....maybe they can take a knee or something?

    And before anyone calls me racist. Yes I think its a serious problem and needs addressing however it also seems anytime anyone tries to do anything the effort is decried as racist
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791
    Gnud said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    He was attending cabinet under Dave, though - which Sadiq Khan (who didn't go to Eton) isn't.

    This, and the fact that he *didn't go directly from the Mayoralty to Number 10*. Indeed, he very clearly returned to Parliament to make that easier, and never attempted a leadership challenge while Mayor.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    Quincel said:

    Dammit, you've stolen one of my topic ideas!

    I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.

    Starmer succeeding is about an 18% chance on the next PM market. To be fair that's discounted by the fact Boris may be replaced before the next election.

    If we assume an ~33% chance of Labour losing the next election, ~90% chance of Starmer lasting until the next election, and ~40% chance of Burnham winning a post-election leadership race . . . then that works out at a 24% chance of Burnham being next leader. Which is roughly what his odds currently are.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    lol, right here on the met office website

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map#?map=SignificantWeather&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.01&fcTime=1627027200

    "Heavy rain and thunderstorms will spread across parts of southern UK,"
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,745
    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,451
    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    Well, the last time we had a summer of riots in England, they were very much called the "UK riots" by the BBC.

    In fact it got to the point that foreign gmts were telling their citizens not to travel to the whole of the UK. Scotland, NI and Wales - and for that matter NE England - were losing out touristically. The Scottish Gmt protested and the BBC had to tell its own staff to change their wording to 'English riots'.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    Have cases peaked?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    bigben said:

    1st does vaccinations only 43000 today compared with 62000 a week ago. Johnsons scare tactics having little impact

    You can't say that, that figure could have been closer to zero today had the scae tactics not had an impact.

    The 43k vaccinated today could have been vaccinated last week if they'd wanted to be. Its going to be progressively harder to get anyone vaccinated from now on.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    fpt
    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Last Friday did anyone think the cases would have fallen this much?

    Yes, me. And I was ridiculed on here.
    I did too. Was also told it was "unlikely" by the smartest guy in the room. Football ending + schools closing was inevitably going to result in a drop off in cases.
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Last Friday did anyone think the cases would have fallen this much?

    Yes, me. And I was ridiculed on here.
    I did too. Was also told it was "unlikely" by the smartest guy in the room. Football ending + schools closing was inevitably going to result in a drop off in cases.
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Last Friday did anyone think the cases would have fallen this much?

    Yes, me. And I was ridiculed on here.
    I did too. Was also told it was "unlikely" by the smartest guy in the room. Football ending + schools closing was inevitably going to result in a drop off in cases.
    I did too, I think.
    But I am surprised by how abruptly growth seems to have stopped. I thought we'd plateau for a bit at 50-55,000 cases a day. Instead of which we seem to have dropped straight back to the high 30s.

    My oldest daughters' last day at primary school today. Year 6 have been having a water fight all day and have decamped en masse to the park to continue. Such joy on their faces. Startling to think this would have been illegal not long ago. I will never take freedom like this for granted again.
    The school, I should add, have been absolutely brilluant in trying to give them as memorable a last few weeks as possible, given the circumstances and the repeated bubble popping. Public sector josworths these people are not.
    Delighted to hear it. Earlier on we were discussing the age groups of those children sent home to self-isolate. I thought there were plenty of 2-11yr olds, using your daughter as an example. Do we have any idea how widespread it was at that age range?
    Yep, I'm aware of plenty of children between 5-11 who have been sent home to isolate including (even last week) whole classes
    Is what I thought.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,462
    Robert Dingwall
    @rwjdingwall
    Some reorganization of govt science advice. When the music stopped, my roles on NERVTAG and JCVI have come to an end today. This was decided some weeks ago and has no bearing on any recent events. (1/5)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,247
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I think thats sort of the point I was trying to make

    There are x jobs in the country
    Y% are good jobs
    Z% are menial jobs

    If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,462
    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Assuming that (a) Starmer stays until the next election (probably 60%), (b) doesn't win it* (70%), Burnham becomes an MP at the election (50%?), and stands and wins following the next General Election (25%?) means you'd want at least 15-1 to bet on Burnham. And probably more like 20-1.

    * By "win", I mean "no Conservative majority or minority government"
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    bigben said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    i think its more to do with schools breaking up mate. Cases will likely flatline the rest of the summer
    Wasn't that just a couple of days ago, too soon to feed into the numbers given the time between infection and symptoms?
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791

    Quincel said:

    Dammit, you've stolen one of my topic ideas!

    I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.

    Starmer succeeding is about an 18% chance on the next PM market. To be fair that's discounted by the fact Boris may be replaced before the next election.

    If we assume an ~33% chance of Labour losing the next election, ~90% chance of Starmer lasting until the next election, and ~40% chance of Burnham winning a post-election leadership race . . . then that works out at a 24% chance of Burnham being next leader. Which is roughly what his odds currently are.
    I assume that is a typo: You mean 33% chance of Labour winning? I say this both because I think we agree that Labour are underdogs and it makes the odds fit.

    My issue is with the 40% chance of a Burnham win in a 2023/24 election. I think he's be around that in a leadership race happening right now, but so much can happen over time and that's unlikely to help him. Burnham's stock is so high it is unlikely to improve, and other challengers might build their profile in that time. This is particularly true of any viable women, since Labour has never elected a woman leader and lots of the activists and MPs care about that.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    OT - an awful lot of assumptions being made about the likely scale of LD success maybe 2 years down the road. Deja vu? - Orpington/Ryedale/Chesham & Amersham and many, many more.
    Also the idea that no-one would work with the Tories? Done that, been there and didn't like the T-shirt. Never say never.

    As for Burnham - there's a reason he quit as an MP after losing the leadership election. There's also a reason he is favourite. Labour know they lack a winner but there's thin gruel left in the PP.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    FPT:
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Last Friday did anyone think the cases would have fallen this much?

    Yes, me. And I was ridiculed on here.
    I did too. Was also told it was "unlikely" by the smartest guy in the room. Football ending + schools closing was inevitably going to result in a drop off in cases.
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Last Friday did anyone think the cases would have fallen this much?

    Yes, me. And I was ridiculed on here.
    I did too. Was also told it was "unlikely" by the smartest guy in the room. Football ending + schools closing was inevitably going to result in a drop off in cases.
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Last Friday did anyone think the cases would have fallen this much?

    Yes, me. And I was ridiculed on here.
    I did too. Was also told it was "unlikely" by the smartest guy in the room. Football ending + schools closing was inevitably going to result in a drop off in cases.
    I did too, I think.
    But I am surprised by how abruptly growth seems to have stopped. I thought we'd plateau for a bit at 50-55,000 cases a day. Instead of which we seem to have dropped straight back to the high 30s.

    My oldest daughters' last day at primary school today. Year 6 have been having a water fight all day and have decamped en masse to the park to continue. Such joy on their faces. Startling to think this would have been illegal not long ago. I will never take freedom like this for granted again.
    The school, I should add, have been absolutely brilluant in trying to give them as memorable a last few weeks as possible, given the circumstances and the repeated bubble popping. Public sector josworths these people are not.
    Delighted to hear it. Earlier on we were discussing the age groups of those children sent home to self-isolate. I thought there were plenty of 2-11yr olds, using your daughter as an example. Do we have any idea how widespread it was at that age range?
    It's been rife at my daughters' primary schools. My 11 year old has had two ten-day periods off in the last month and my 9-year old has had one. My 6-year old has somehow slipped through the net but at the end of last week five bubbles out of seven at the infant/nursery school had popped. I'd say very roughly a quarter of the junior school (7-11) has had a positive PCR, and no doubt many more have had it.
    But this particular neighbourhood of Trafford does seem to have been a particular hotspot - I don't think many primary schools have been quite so hard hit.

    According to this data, the 10-19 bracket has been about four times harder hit than the 0-9:
    https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1418599019098476554/photo/1



  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791
    rcs1000 said:

    Assuming that (a) Starmer stays until the next election (probably 60%), (b) doesn't win it* (70%), Burnham becomes an MP at the election (50%?), and stands and wins following the next General Election (25%?) means you'd want at least 15-1 to bet on Burnham. And probably more like 20-1.

    * By "win", I mean "no Conservative majority or minority government"

    To be clear, this is for Burnham next PM, not next Labour leader (which is your steps one-three)?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    bigben said:

    RobD said:

    bigben said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    i think its more to do with schools breaking up mate. Cases will likely flatline the rest of the summer
    Wasn't that just a couple of days ago, too soon to feed into the numbers given the time between infection and symptoms?
    maybe end of euros effect too
    Yeah, I think that's likely. Not saying there won't be a end-of-school effect, just that it's a little soon. Testing will rapidly drop, too.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,378
    It makes a radical change to have non MP Burnham as favourite after all those sane years of having David Milliband as the betting favourite.

    It makes you wonder about the wisdom of the people parting with money.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    felix said:

    OT - an awful lot of assumptions being made about the likely scale of LD success maybe 2 years down the road. Deja vu? - Orpington/Ryedale/Chesham & Amersham and many, many more.
    Also the idea that no-one would work with the Tories? Done that, been there and didn't like the T-shirt. Never say never.

    As for Burnham - there's a reason he quit as an MP after losing the leadership election. There's also a reason he is favourite. Labour know they lack a winner but there's thin gruel left in the PP.

    These thin gruel everywhere - who in their right minds would want to be an MP?

    Heck you only have to look at the posters here who still have that ambition to know that no one clueful and sane wants to become one.
  • MaffewMaffew Posts: 186
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    btw, welcome @bigben
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,745
    bigben said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    i think its more to do with schools breaking up mate. Cases will likely flatline the rest of the summer
    I'm not saying it isn't, in fact a few of us said that might happen and coupled with the football ending it would lead to a reduction in cases because the activity rate would decrease. The question mark is what effect step 4 will have and at what rate that might feed through to hospitals, the jury is definitely out on that bit and the net effect might actually result in R=1 which reduces more people get antibodies and we hit herd immunity.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    bigben said:

    this is not good news from israel
    NEW - Pfizer shot — the vaccine given to nearly all Israelis — is now just 39% effective against infection, while being only 41% effective in preventing symptomatic #COVID19, according to new statistics of the Health Ministry (Times of Israel)
    11:48 AM · Jul 23, 2021·Twitter Web App
    4,672
    Retweets
    956
    Quote Tweets
    8,932
    Likes

    Different dosing strategy than in the (trigger warning) UK. The longer interval seems to give greater protection.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    edited July 23
    Maffew said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
    Years ago - a degree was a suitable filter that allowed a company to pick (based on the final grade obtained) suitable candidates.

    Now 50%+ head to university (and after a few years where few graduate schemes were run due to the global crisis) over filters have been added to the criteria used.

    It's also the same elsewhere - the police now pick from their specials unless they have a seriously large number of vacancies. So if you want to be a police officer you need to spend a couple of years doing it in your spare time first.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I think thats sort of the point I was trying to make

    There are x jobs in the country
    Y% are good jobs
    Z% are menial jobs

    If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
    The place where you and I disagree is the "keeping wages artificially low". I am fully onboard that unlimited immigration increases demand on scarce resources like housing, schools, etc., and therefore creates negative externalities.

    However, if wages were driving down the cost of labour across the board, you'd expect to see a number of things:

    (1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates
    (2) The profit share of GDP grow relative to countries where immigration was lower
    (3) Lower wage growth than countries where immigration was lower

    But (1) is a definite "no", (2) is also "no", with the UK's dropping behind most other EU and developed world countries for profit share, and (3) is at best is mixed (albeit, you would expect that countries with higher wage growth would attract more immigration, so it is chicken and egg).

    I struggle to see how - given an increasing proportion of jobs can be delivered remotely or across national borders - wages in the medium term exceed international norms. Now, that may not be true of Starbucks or your local hairdresser, but it's probably true of pretty much every graduate level job.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    edited July 23
    Ouch, just put The Hundred on and immediately saw something I've never seen before. Clean bowled, but the ball passed the batter over waist height, so it was a no ball instead.

    I wonder if that's less likely in men's cricket due to having higher waists? Or if its just really unfortunate.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,247
    Maffew said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
    I have had the odd fresh faced graduate in computer science under my wing throughout my working life, I can certainly say there is a decline not necessarily in them but what they are taught. Last guy I had in fact under my wing wasnt even a gradutate he was on work experience from school. First day I looked over his work and called him over and went why is every method returning a string array? His reply was "Oh well all the ones we write at school do so". End of his placement his teacher came in and I took her through what he had written in his 6 weeks with us. She was oh we don't teach any of that till degree level. FFS we are writing in an object oriented language he is being taught in one as a procedural language where all return values have to be string arrays
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    bigben said:

    RobD said:

    bigben said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    i think its more to do with schools breaking up mate. Cases will likely flatline the rest of the summer
    Wasn't that just a couple of days ago, too soon to feed into the numbers given the time between infection and symptoms?
    maybe end of euros effect too
    I think it's far too early, given the multiplicity of inputs, one of which as you say was the footie, to attribute this number to anything let alone a trend, peak, trough or anything.

    Let's look at the numbers as they continue to emerge over the next days and weeks before we all jump one way or another.

    And welcome, btw.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
    They'll be shell-shocked
  • theakestheakes Posts: 555
    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,412
    I am fully vaccinated and support and encourage anybody who can go get vaccinated.

    I say that as a starter because I have a sad, very sad story to tell, A few weeks ago ago a relative of mine died the day after he was vaccinated, he is the brother in law of my sister in law, but on the other side of her family, if that makes since. it was a Saturday and he was looing after the 5 year old daughter, as his wife was working, when he stated to feel unwell, he called his parents who live near and asked if they could come and help look after the lintel one, as he was feeling bad. when they got to the house they could see her but not her dad, so they brock the door and got in, to be tolled, 'daddy's asleep in the kitchen and he wont wake up' he was a really nice chap, I did not know him well, just met him at my brother stage do and a few other family events. He was 35 ish.

    I mention this because today, in the city where I work, a young ish lady had a bad reaction to the viruses I cant remember the name of the condition but her body continually shakes and she has to walk with crutches. all of the young people I work with seem to have it on there phones and seem to have all decided that they are not getting the jab and those who have had one jab are not getting the second.

    I thought I would try to talk about it rationally and shared the experience above and noted that I recognised there consenes but hear are some numbers and facts, ...... lots more people die form the virus than the vaccine and even while the risk of death to people your age is small you could still get long Covid, vaccines work, and this one has now been tested on billions of people around the would, far moor than in any laboratory test, and we know there is a risk from the virus and we also know its very very small.

    I completely failed to make an impact, I just got tolled to look again at the bloody video. maybe the thought of being permanently disabled is more freighting than death? or more likely a video is a powerful way of sharing a message.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    NO
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    edited July 23
    Quincel said:

    Quincel said:

    Dammit, you've stolen one of my topic ideas!

    I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.

    Starmer succeeding is about an 18% chance on the next PM market. To be fair that's discounted by the fact Boris may be replaced before the next election.

    If we assume an ~33% chance of Labour losing the next election, ~90% chance of Starmer lasting until the next election, and ~40% chance of Burnham winning a post-election leadership race . . . then that works out at a 24% chance of Burnham being next leader. Which is roughly what his odds currently are.
    I assume that is a typo: You mean 33% chance of Labour winning? I say this both because I think we agree that Labour are underdogs and it makes the odds fit.

    My issue is with the 40% chance of a Burnham win in a 2023/24 election. I think he's be around that in a leadership race happening right now, but so much can happen over time and that's unlikely to help him. Burnham's stock is so high it is unlikely to improve, and other challengers might build their profile in that time. This is particularly true of any viable women, since Labour has never elected a woman leader and lots of the activists and MPs care about that.
    Yes sorry. I rewrote my text but didn't change the number so left that typo there.

    If you check my maths then yes I mean 1/3rd chance of them winning, 2/3rds of them not having PM after the election.

    90% (Starmer lasts until election) * 67% (Starmer loses and resigns) * 40% (Burnham wins) = 24% which is approximately Burnham's current odds. Fair odds for me, no value but fair.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
    They'll be shell-shocked
    They'll be scrambled looking for a new line to take.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,247
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I think thats sort of the point I was trying to make

    There are x jobs in the country
    Y% are good jobs
    Z% are menial jobs

    If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
    The place where you and I disagree is the "keeping wages artificially low". I am fully onboard that unlimited immigration increases demand on scarce resources like housing, schools, etc., and therefore creates negative externalities.

    However, if wages were driving down the cost of labour across the board, you'd expect to see a number of things:

    (1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates
    (2) The profit share of GDP grow relative to countries where immigration was lower
    (3) Lower wage growth than countries where immigration was lower

    But (1) is a definite "no", (2) is also "no", with the UK's dropping behind most other EU and developed world countries for profit share, and (3) is at best is mixed (albeit, you would expect that countries with higher wage growth would attract more immigration, so it is chicken and egg).

    I struggle to see how - given an increasing proportion of jobs can be delivered remotely or across national borders - wages in the medium term exceed international norms. Now, that may not be true of Starbucks or your local hairdresser, but it's probably true of pretty much every graduate level job.
    Ok for starters 1) is false. It would be true if lower wages in equal situations. However the uk has not invested in automation and has instead used low priced labour so the countries competing are in fact a lot more equal than you claim they merely had an upfront cost to automate which year by year gets cheaper

    2) GDP per capita in the uk has declined over the last 20 years to the point we are now 29th

    3) Wage growth in this country is misleading if you stripped out the uprating of minimum wage and the excesses of the top 10% wage growth is minimal
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    RobD said:

    bigben said:

    this is not good news from israel
    NEW - Pfizer shot — the vaccine given to nearly all Israelis — is now just 39% effective against infection, while being only 41% effective in preventing symptomatic #COVID19, according to new statistics of the Health Ministry (Times of Israel)
    11:48 AM · Jul 23, 2021·Twitter Web App
    4,672
    Retweets
    956
    Quote Tweets
    8,932
    Likes

    Different dosing strategy than in the (trigger warning) UK. The longer interval seems to give greater protection.
    Spainn has stuck rigidly to the 3 week gap for Pfizer -an awful lot of doses administered. Boosters expected in the Autumn but I'm a little sceptical about the Israeli data here. Thankful I got the second rate AZT! :smiley:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,086

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
    They'll be shell-shocked
    They'll be scrambled looking for a new line to take.
    They’re sufficiently hard boiled to ignore it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN reporting on the UK is rarely accurate. The lockdown was described by them as one of the strictest in the world, which was absolute bollocks.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
    They'll be shell-shocked
    They'll be scrambled looking for a new line to take.
    They’re sufficiently hard boiled to ignore it.
    They'll poach anything they can to further their agenda.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
    They'll be shell-shocked
    Scrambling for an eggscuse - they've been coddled for too long by Sky News..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    felix said:

    OT - an awful lot of assumptions being made about the likely scale of LD success maybe 2 years down the road. Deja vu? - Orpington/Ryedale/Chesham & Amersham and many, many more.
    Also the idea that no-one would work with the Tories? Done that, been there and didn't like the T-shirt. Never say never.

    As for Burnham - there's a reason he quit as an MP after losing the leadership election. There's also a reason he is favourite. Labour know they lack a winner but there's thin gruel left in the PP.

    I think the LibDems will probably return to the same position they were in in 1979 or 1992 at the next election: i.e. mid teens vote share and 16-20 MPs.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    @BigRich very sorry to hear that. Keep fighting the fight.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN is the flip side of Fox News.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Quincel said:

    Gnud said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    He was attending cabinet under Dave, though - which Sadiq Khan (who didn't go to Eton) isn't.

    This, and the fact that he *didn't go directly from the Mayoralty to Number 10*. Indeed, he very clearly returned to Parliament to make that easier, and never attempted a leadership challenge while Mayor.
    Boris did return to Parliament whilst still Mayor, having previously ruled this out.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    Carnyx said:

    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    Well, the last time we had a summer of riots in England, they were very much called the "UK riots" by the BBC.

    In fact it got to the point that foreign gmts were telling their citizens not to travel to the whole of the UK. Scotland, NI and Wales - and for that matter NE England - were losing out touristically. The Scottish Gmt protested and the BBC had to tell its own staff to change their wording to 'English riots'.
    they are trying hard to promote it as one country , usual underhand Tory arsewipe unionist tricks. They will not succeed , we are not stupid they can go swivel.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,451
    felix said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Yolks on them.
    They'll be shell-shocked
    Scrambling for an eggscuse - they've been coddled for too long by Sky News..
    Or , given some journalists' numeracy (not thinking of Sky here), caviar to the general.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    lol, right here on the met office website

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map#?map=SignificantWeather&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.01&fcTime=1627027200

    "Heavy rain and thunderstorms will spread across parts of southern UK,"
    state propaganda by tories trying to pretend only one country , and UK = England.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,412
    TOPPING said:

    @BigRich very sorry to hear that. Keep fighting the fight.

    Thanks
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,357
    edited July 23
    A glance at Oddschecker indicates this: Burnham is clear favourite for next leader. Rayner clear second, Nandy third; the rest all over the place.

    A question to ask is whether next time Labour MPs and members want to appoint the quelli speciali who could actually win/deny Tories a majority, (which latter seems the much greater likelihood).

    None of the first three come in that category, unless up against an equivalent of Mrs T May in an election.

    But: Labour may revert to their usual practice of appointing the wrong one, in which case everyone is about level pegging; also SKS may be PM after 2023/4 until at least 2028/9 in which case at this moment no-one has a clue. It could be someone who is currently doing A levels or their degree in textile studies at Sunderland.

    And if they want to appoint the special one, they may have to wait a bit for one to emerge out of the scrum. You are not yet quelli speciali if you have to scratch your head to remember their name.

    If ever there was a case for taking Harry's advice and not betting, except perhaps for £1 on Pidcock (100/1) it is this.
  • MaffewMaffew Posts: 186
    eek said:

    Maffew said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    This looks excellent.

    Special visa for grads of the world’s best universities. Other visa loosening too.

    https://twitter.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1418559832949460997?s=21

    I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
    Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
    That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.

    If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
    For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.

    If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
    For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
    Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.

    There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.

    These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.

    Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.

    When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.

    And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
    I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
    Years ago - a degree was a suitable filter that allowed a company to pick (based on the final grade obtained) suitable candidates.

    Now 50%+ head to university (and after a few years where few graduate schemes were run due to the global crisis) over filters have been added to the criteria used.

    It's also the same elsewhere - the police now pick from their specials unless they have a seriously large number of vacancies. So if you want to be a police officer you need to spend a couple of years doing it in your spare time first.
    I'm not sure that's the case for the place I work. While there are more graduates around, as far as I can see we're recruiting from the same pool of graduates that we were ten years ago - relatively highly rated universities. I'm not sure the numbers coming out of those have changed so much.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    lol, right here on the met office website

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map#?map=SignificantWeather&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.01&fcTime=1627027200

    "Heavy rain and thunderstorms will spread across parts of southern UK,"
    state propaganda by tories trying to pretend only one country , and UK = England.
    Or, perhaps, they are just describing a weather phenomena that is affecting the entire UK.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    What about that being just 'a' peak? - ie cases drop off from there for a short while but then rise again and we get another peak. Is this a possibility?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    lol, right here on the met office website

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map#?map=SignificantWeather&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.01&fcTime=1627027200

    "Heavy rain and thunderstorms will spread across parts of southern UK,"
    state propaganda by tories trying to pretend only one country , and UK = England.
    Or, perhaps, they are just describing a weather phenomena that is affecting the entire UK.
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    lol, right here on the met office website

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map#?map=SignificantWeather&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.01&fcTime=1627027200

    "Heavy rain and thunderstorms will spread across parts of southern UK,"
    state propaganda by tories trying to pretend only one country , and UK = England.
    Or, perhaps, they are just describing a weather phenomena that is affecting the entire UK.
    you mean like saying it is raining in South America
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,164
    felix said:

    OT - an awful lot of assumptions being made about the likely scale of LD success maybe 2 years down the road. Deja vu? - Orpington/Ryedale/Chesham & Amersham and many, many more.
    Also the idea that no-one would work with the Tories? Done that, been there and didn't like the T-shirt. Never say never.

    As for Burnham - there's a reason he quit as an MP after losing the leadership election. There's also a reason he is favourite. Labour know they lack a winner but there's thin gruel left in the PP.

    One of the reasons that Labour MPs keep on quitting the Commons to take up the Mayoralty positions the Tories keep on helpfully creating for them, is that they see no good future for them in the House. Years of grinding opposition, with not even the hope of becoming a ministerial bag-carrier, or being able to pressure your government into accepting a backbench amendment. The exodus of Labour MPs over the last decade is telling.

    This reason, above many others, is why Burnham will likely remain as mayor of Greater Manchester, where he can enjoy being able to do something, and also have a profile as some sort of Labour folk hero. If he does decide to return to the Commons it might be a sign that the tide is finally turning for Labour, and being a Labour MP has the potential to be personally rewarding, or it could simply be that he's started to believe his own mythology, as Labour's saviour-in-exile.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
    so bad I had to reply twice
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,451
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    What about that being just 'a' peak? - ie cases drop off from there for a short while but then rise again and we get another peak. Is this a possibility?
    "Peak"? Meringues!!!
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    BigRich said:

    I am fully vaccinated and support and encourage anybody who can go get vaccinated.

    I say that as a starter because I have a sad, very sad story to tell, A few weeks ago ago a relative of mine died the day after he was vaccinated, he is the brother in law of my sister in law, but on the other side of her family, if that makes since. it was a Saturday and he was looing after the 5 year old daughter, as his wife was working, when he stated to feel unwell, he called his parents who live near and asked if they could come and help look after the lintel one, as he was feeling bad. when they got to the house they could see her but not her dad, so they brock the door and got in, to be tolled, 'daddy's asleep in the kitchen and he wont wake up' he was a really nice chap, I did not know him well, just met him at my brother stage do and a few other family events. He was 35 ish.

    I mention this because today, in the city where I work, a young ish lady had a bad reaction to the viruses I cant remember the name of the condition but her body continually shakes and she has to walk with crutches. all of the young people I work with seem to have it on there phones and seem to have all decided that they are not getting the jab and those who have had one jab are not getting the second.

    I thought I would try to talk about it rationally and shared the experience above and noted that I recognised there consenes but hear are some numbers and facts, ...... lots more people die form the virus than the vaccine and even while the risk of death to people your age is small you could still get long Covid, vaccines work, and this one has now been tested on billions of people around the would, far moor than in any laboratory test, and we know there is a risk from the virus and we also know its very very small.

    I completely failed to make an impact, I just got tolled to look again at the bloody video. maybe the thought of being permanently disabled is more freighting than death? or more likely a video is a powerful way of sharing a message.

    Sorry to hear that - but it shows how an anecdote / story, especially one that is known to them is way more important than data. Which is hardly surprising when you consider how few people actually understand probability so can grasp the fact that vaccination doesn't remove the risk of infection, merely reduces it significantly.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,963
    kinabalu said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
    It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
    so bad I had to reply twice
    I like to think that in your absolute rage that someone dared use the phrase "UK" to describe the country called "The United Kingdom" that you forgot about the first reply.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,906
    felix said:

    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN is the flip side of Fox News.
    No it isn’t. Not remotely.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    kinabalu said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
    It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
    Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    alex_ said:

    felix said:

    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN is the flip side of Fox News.
    No it isn’t. Not remotely.
    The New York Times is the flip side of Fox News, in terms of impact and bias
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
    It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
    Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
    "Had to be" is strong language.

    Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
    so bad I had to reply twice
    I like to think that in your absolute rage that someone dared use the phrase "UK" to describe the country called "The United Kingdom" that you forgot about the first reply.
    UK is not a country it is a union of countries and principalities
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
    so bad I had to reply twice
    I like to think that in your absolute rage that someone dared use the phrase "UK" to describe the country called "The United Kingdom" that you forgot about the first reply.
    UK is not a country it is a union of countries and principalities
    Absolute rage....
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,963
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
    It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
    Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
    Some (most?) will tell you it should be the best person for the job and not all women shortlists. But if the people choosing consistently assume men are better than women then neither process can be seen as actually getting the best person for the job, either approach comes with problems and benefits.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    edited July 23

    kinabalu said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
    It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
    Ah yes, very true, I mainly meant a negative in my eyes rather than for the betting necessarily. If there's a female candidate who I like and think would be effective as leader I'll be voting for her. Just like last time. I voted for Nandy, with Starmer 2nd pref. Course, if most Lab members are of similar mind, Burnham has no chance, since there WILL be quality female opposition, but as you say, precedent indicates that perhaps a bloke will again prevail.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,906
    Leon said:

    alex_ said:

    felix said:

    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN is the flip side of Fox News.
    No it isn’t. Not remotely.
    The New York Times is the flip side of Fox News, in terms of impact and bias
    Bias/slant is a thing. Lazy reporting and assumptions, particularly when reporting on abroad and dumbing down for a home audience is a thing.

    But NY Times and CNN are still serious news organisations that aspire to accuracy and factual reporting. Doesn’t mean they always get it right (particularly for reasons given above), but they still aspire to it.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 3,203
    edited July 23
    On topic, whilst it's a fair point that Burnham not being an MP means he really shouldn't be favourite to succeed Starmer, the point that he was a weak candidate in 2015 isn't that persuasive.

    Since 2015, Burnham has enormously strengthened his credibility. He's been seen to be an effective and energetic Mayor, vastly improving his reputation as a capable politician. He had a crushing victory against a poor national backdrop in May, boosting his status as a popular one. He's been a loud and vocal Johnson critic, which goes down well with Labour members. And he's been away from the Westminster Labour sh1tshow, so has avoided harm from that.

    As an electable candidate (leaving aside the doubtless important "not an MP" point) Andy Burnham is a totally different proposition in 2021 than he was in 2015.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    alex_ said:

    felix said:

    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN is the flip side of Fox News.
    No it isn’t. Not remotely.
    Yup - it kinda is.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Carnyx said:

    Gnud said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    No.
    Do you call France the Fifth Republic?

    I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
    Well, the last time we had a summer of riots in England, they were very much called the "UK riots" by the BBC.

    In fact it got to the point that foreign gmts were telling their citizens not to travel to the whole of the UK. Scotland, NI and Wales - and for that matter NE England - were losing out touristically. The Scottish Gmt protested and the BBC had to tell its own staff to change their wording to 'English riots'.
    The Kent variant became the UK variant. Missed out a country there.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,164

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.

    Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.

    Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.

    Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).

    I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
    It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
    Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
    "Had to be" is strong language.

    Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
    Of MPs elected in 2019, 51% of Labour MPs were female and 24% of Conservative MPs. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01250/SN01250.pdf

    So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,759
    edited July 23
    bigben said:

    this is not good news from israel
    NEW - Pfizer shot — the vaccine given to nearly all Israelis — is now just 39% effective against infection, while being only 41% effective in preventing symptomatic #COVID19, according to new statistics of the Health Ministry (Times of Israel)
    11:48 AM · Jul 23, 2021·Twitter Web App
    4,672
    Retweets
    956
    Quote Tweets
    8,932
    Likes

    Its comes from this slide....

    https://twitter.com/LucyStats/status/1418370036918624256?s=19

    All their stats are very similar to PHE and Candian ones for things like hospitalisations, except totally skewed by the protection from getting it among those jabbed in Jan / Feb.

    The tweet says it is because they are the most vulnerable, but there is something off, perhaps sample size. If it really was 16% among old / vulnerable, we wouldn't be seeing only 15% of cases among double vaxxed in the UK and we would have bug outbreaks in care homes etc, given how widespread it is among unvaxxed / partially vaxxed in the UK.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    edited July 23
    alex_ said:

    Leon said:

    alex_ said:

    felix said:

    theakes said:

    According to CNN London corrspondent this morning, cases of the virus are soaring, when they have been falling for almost 5 days! Fake new as Trump used to say.

    CNN is the flip side of Fox News.
    No it isn’t. Not remotely.
    The New York Times is the flip side of Fox News, in terms of impact and bias
    Bias/slant is a thing. Lazy reporting and assumptions, particularly when reporting on abroad and dumbing down for a home audience is a thing.

    But NY Times and CNN are still serious news organisations that aspire to accuracy and factual reporting. Doesn’t mean they always get it right (particularly for reasons given above), but they still aspire to it.
    The NYT has no interest in "getting it right" when it comes to, say, reporting the UK. They lazily pump out the most fatuous bilge which they must KNOW is total bollocks

    So, like Fox News then
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432

    On topic, whilst it's a fair point that Burnham not being an MP means he really shouldn't be favourite to succeed Starmer, the point that he was a weak candidate in 2015 isn't that persuasive.

    Since 2015, Burnham has enormously strengthened his credibility. He's been seen to be an effective and energetic Mayor, vastly improving his reputation as a capable politician. He had a crushing victory against a poor national backdrop in May, boosting his status as a popular one. He's been a loud and vocal Johnson critic, which goes down well with Labour members. And he's been away from the Westminster Labour sh1tshow, so has avoided harm from that.

    As an electable candidate (leaving aside the doubtless important "not an MP" point) Andy Burnham is a totally different proposition in 2021 than he was in 2015.

    He's also changed his image somewhat. In 2015 his 'not a Westminster politician's shtick was rather undermined by the fact that he was, er, a Westminster politician. No matter how he tried to portray himself he was seen as continuity New Labour. Now he's had a few years in which he has genuinely displayed a bit of independence, and he can genuinely appear to be his own man.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,086
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
    so bad I had to reply twice
    I like to think that in your absolute rage that someone dared use the phrase "UK" to describe the country called "The United Kingdom" that you forgot about the first reply.
    UK is not a country it is a union of countries and principalities
    And powers?
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say if we are in a position where Thursday was the peak in terms of cases for the UK then there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces across the world.

    iSAGE will be drowning in egg white.
    Dig deep for ‘the citizens’
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Cookie said:

    On topic, whilst it's a fair point that Burnham not being an MP means he really shouldn't be favourite to succeed Starmer, the point that he was a weak candidate in 2015 isn't that persuasive.

    Since 2015, Burnham has enormously strengthened his credibility. He's been seen to be an effective and energetic Mayor, vastly improving his reputation as a capable politician. He had a crushing victory against a poor national backdrop in May, boosting his status as a popular one. He's been a loud and vocal Johnson critic, which goes down well with Labour members. And he's been away from the Westminster Labour sh1tshow, so has avoided harm from that.

    As an electable candidate (leaving aside the doubtless important "not an MP" point) Andy Burnham is a totally different proposition in 2021 than he was in 2015.

    He's also changed his image somewhat. In 2015 his 'not a Westminster politician's shtick was rather undermined by the fact that he was, er, a Westminster politician. No matter how he tried to portray himself he was seen as continuity New Labour. Now he's had a few years in which he has genuinely displayed a bit of independence, and he can genuinely appear to be his own man.
    He's also gotten older, which has been to his advantage, as he looked like a pretty boy band member back then. Lightweight. Not any more. He seems grittier, more mature, I quite like him
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782

    Ouch, just put The Hundred on and immediately saw something I've never seen before. Clean bowled, but the ball passed the batter over waist height, so it was a no ball instead.

    I wonder if that's less likely in men's cricket due to having higher waists? Or if its just really unfortunate.

    Interesting.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Burnham also seems "normal"

    Which, given Labour's present-day parade of Woke freaks, crazed giantesses, eerie Marxist old people, and Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, is an achievement
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Fintan O'Toole accidentally sent his contribution to yesterday's thread to the Guardian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/23/northern-ireland-protocol-boris-johnson-oven-ready-deal-sausage

    So what is the heart of the problem? It is not the great Ulster sausage famine. It does not lie in the complexities of phytosanitary standards or the mechanisms of legal interpretation – all of which could be solved with pragmatism and mutual trust. When this problem is dissected, the message written on its heart will be: Boris Johnson is constitutionally incapable of accepting the relationship between cause and effect
    Wrong. What is at the heart of the problem is that the EU and the UK want a good relationship in this new situation but that the EU assumes it is OK for the UK to bend its red lines over UK sovereignty and integrity but not OK for the EU to bend its red lines over the single market forbidding entry to high quality products with equivalent standards.

    The RoI and UK are sovereign states, the EU is an elaborate trade association. Its elevation into a body that could give sovereign states the runaround is one of the reasons Brexit won the referendum. They are not learning.
    It is far simpler than that. The UK was part of something that has red lines which apply to everyone who isn't part of it. We chose to depart, create our own red lines which clash with the EU's lines, then complain that the EU are being inflexible.

    We knew their position when we left. Nothing is new or unknown. We demanded 3rd country status and now complain about our treatment as a 3rd country.

    If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
    Bascially Brexit was a rubbish idea with hardly any upside. And why hasn't BoJo allowed the Russia report to be published?
    Smithson cuts through the guff and points out the blindingly obvious. We deserve more of this clarity. Chapeau!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,478
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Gnud said:

    "Youth violence likely to explode over summer, UK experts fear".

    Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?

    Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.

    Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".

    Isn't the country called the UK?
    Assume you never took geography at school given your lack of knowledge.
    You've already replied to this one malc.
    so bad I had to reply twice
    I like to think that in your absolute rage that someone dared use the phrase "UK" to describe the country called "The United Kingdom" that you forgot about the first reply.
    UK is not a country it is a union of countries and principalities
    Absolute rage....
    You been on the babycham
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,638
    Quincel said:

    Dammit, you've stolen one of my topic ideas!

    I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.

    I am told on here that Johnson is unassailable and Starmer is too hopeless for 2024.

    Then again I was told last night on PB that the UK's supermarket shelves were bulging with fresh produce. I have the photographs to prove that in Tesco, Bridgend at least, that was a great big fat hairy lie!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    Quincel said:

    Dammit, you've stolen one of my topic ideas!

    I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.

    I am told on here that Johnson is unassailable and Starmer is too hopeless for 2024.

    Then again I was told last night on PB that the UK's supermarket shelves were bulging with fresh produce. I have the photographs to prove that in Tesco, Bridgend at least, that was a great big fat hairy lie!
    No one in Brigend ever buys "fresh produce" so that's probably why they don't bother to stock it
This discussion has been closed.