Tories drop to 36% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Some of the comments this morning make an odd argument. Paterson was in repeated and egregious breach of the rules. Thats just a fact. We don't need to make excuses for it any more. He was wrong, he got caught, he was forced to quit. Done.
The fun now is turning the spotlight on the stuff Number 10 is trying to hide.3 -
Yes, I have been very wary of speculating, in the circumstances.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
She chose his birthday to do the terrible act, which is unlikely to have been a coincidence.0 -
Hang on. If you think there's an important issue, it makes sense to contact loads of relevant people about it, doesn't it? Especially if initial contact(s) have not yielded results.JohnLilburne said:
Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.Philip_Thompson said:
Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.IanB2 said:
But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.Philip_Thompson said:
If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.Foxy said:
It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.Philip_Thompson said:
It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.Foxy said:
If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.TOPPING said:
(The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
Imagine an MP discovers something safety-critical from a company he is involved with - or, on Labour's side, a trade union he gets money and influence indirectly from. The company may benefit, but the knowledge is for the public good. He raises this issue, but nothing occurs. So they contact more people. One issue, many contacts.
It's different if many contacts are about many different issues.
Also, I'd say there is more latitude if it's a safety-related matter.0 -
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers0 -
He never said his actions led to his wife's suicide.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.0 -
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
0 -
It will last, until the next spat with Macron. Macron and Boris have got a free mutual inflate my ratings button, they probably have a good laugh about it in private before being unreasonable with each other in public.Stuartinromford said:
From memory, Wallpapergate did cut through in some polls; there was that clutch of tiny leads at the end of April, but they didn't last.Gardenwalker said:
Thank goodness.Aslan said:Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.
Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.
It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
Will this one persist?1 -
Sadly, that says more about you than him.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.0 -
Did his actions not lead to a standards investigation? Weird, I am sure I read something about that.Philip_Thompson said:
He never said his actions led to his wife's suicide.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.1 -
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-591706670 -
I think @Chris covers this. The follow-ups were more akin to plugging Randox.Philip_Thompson said:
That seems a flawed logic. If it is reasonable to intervene once as public interest, then why are follow-up interventions not just as much in the public interest?JohnLilburne said:
Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.Philip_Thompson said:
Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.IanB2 said:
But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.Philip_Thompson said:
If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.Foxy said:
It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.Philip_Thompson said:
It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.Foxy said:
If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.TOPPING said:
(The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
Either its in the public interest or not. If it is, why is that limited to just once?
Surely the way to demonstrate it wasn't public interest it so show there was no public interest in what was raised, not to show that it was raised more than once?1 -
At least I have the self awareness to know I would not make a good MP, or to blame others for who I am.JosiasJessop said:
Sadly, that says more about you than him.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.0 -
I think there's a lot of people who take the view that lobbying by the Health and Care sector for ongoing restrictions on the public to mitigate overstretch/pressures in the health and care sector aren't particularly enamoured to hearing threats about how a large contributor to these pressures maybe individuals within the sector refusing to get vaccinated. And to some extent will see the whole thing as a form of blackmail.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.0 -
Thanks.DayTripper said:Totally off topic, but @Cyclefree and family may want to take note of this:-
https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/19686071.millom-coastguard-team-issue-safety-warning-confirmed-siting-highly-poisonous-plant/
It's not really beach weather at the moment. St Bees is much further up the coast of course.
I'll make sure Husband knows when he walks the dog.0 -
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.0 -
That article is from September - so I wonder where the law case is as it makes little sense to kick it off after the law comes into force.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
As for the rest - health and safety trumps whatever is written in a contract and a health related to a pandemic trumps absolutely everything...0 -
A suicide is always a terrible thing but if my dishonesty and shame had played any part in my wife taking such a step I would be utterly overcome with remorse. I certainly would not be blaming those who had pointed out my dishonesty and shame nor would I be even hinting that this somehow excused it or was punishment enough. I suspect the truth is more complicated but I genuinely find this mindset repulsive and vile.IanB2 said:
Yes, I have been very wary of speculating, in the circumstances.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
She chose his birthday to do the terrible act, which is unlikely to have been a coincidence.5 -
In his eyes, no, the the standards investigation was flawed and not a justified response to his actions.noneoftheabove said:
Did his actions not lead to a standards investigation? Weird, I am sure I read something about that.Philip_Thompson said:
He never said his actions led to his wife's suicide.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.0 -
Question - if this tidal wave of shit starts to engulf Boris and the party decides its time for him to do a Paterson, is it still Rishi as the heir apparent?0
-
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.2 -
This -1 lead?Stuartinromford said:
From memory, Wallpapergate did cut through in some polls; there was that clutch of tiny leads at the end of April, but they didn't last.Gardenwalker said:
Thank goodness.Aslan said:Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.
Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.
It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
Will this one persist?0 -
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
0 -
BREAKING: Yorkshire cricket chairman Roger Hutton RESIGNS amid racism storm
In explosive statement he claims;
*he experienced “a culture that refuses to accept change”
*”constant unwillingness from the Exec Board members & senior management to apologise and to accept racism”
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1456532119061155841/photo/12 -
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.0 -
The Mail helpfully includes a picture of a large, grand and well-appointed dining room.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
0 -
In his words perhaps, but he is not delusional, he knows he broke the rules, was just surprised that he could not get away with it.Philip_Thompson said:
In his eyes, no, the the standards investigation was flawed and not a justified response to his actions.noneoftheabove said:
Did his actions not lead to a standards investigation? Weird, I am sure I read something about that.Philip_Thompson said:
He never said his actions led to his wife's suicide.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.1 -
BJ and pals shambling back to their comfort zone?
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1456520115814535186?s=21
Must have been immensely frustrating for them not to have been able to get a ‘blame the EU and foreigns’ angle into the Paterson clusterfuck (apologies if I’ve missed any chat about Paterson being persecuted cos he’s a Brexiteer).0 -
Surely he should have done that a while ago.Scott_xP said:BREAKING: Yorkshire cricket chairman Roger Hutton RESIGNS amid racism storm
In explosive statement he claims;
*he experienced “a culture that refuses to accept change”
*”constant unwillingness from the Exec Board members & senior management to apologise and to accept racism”
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1456532119061155841/photo/1
Although I can see why he would want to resign rather than chair today's emergency meeting.
The club needs to be closed down and restarted with a whole new management team.1 -
I’m not so sure. This being framed as it was on the 90s and 00s. Politics is very different now. Bubbles are largely impenetrable.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to, in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Many people have signed up to Boris because of, not inspite of his faults. I will be surprised if this has impact.
All the stories about Trump had no impact. He’s the favourite for 2024 despite an insurrection.
Those that love Corbyn, love him still.0 -
You don't seem like the sort of person who would keep themselves to themselves in the mess.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
0 -
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.0 -
RochdalePioneers said:
Question - if this tidal wave of shit starts to engulf Boris and the party decides its time for him to do a Paterson, is it still Rishi as the heir apparent?
If it's before Christmas it has to be. Can't see Truss being in a position given the time frame, and given the cause of Boris's destruction it couldn't be Priti.0 -
Absolutely scathing opinion piece in today's Telegrpah by Fraser Nelson over the Paterson affair; Headline: "The Tories are behaving ike a tired government in its dying days."
Telegraph editorial, while sympathetic to Paterson and critical of Kathryn Stone, admits the government has handled it badly.0 -
Just because vaccinated people can still pass the virus on doesn't mean that unvaccinated people aren't much, much more at risk of passing the virus on - and at risk of passing on a higher dose of the virus too.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
Its about balancing risk, being vaccinated is much more sensible than wearing a mask. Masks are still required in care homes and that to be fair is one place I'd still wear them. If masks are required there, then vaccines certainly should be.
The requirement for masks should be removed before the requirement for vaccines.
Care homes are literally by an order of many magnitudes the most vulnerable people in the whole of society for the virus. They are the one place beyond anywhere else that there should be sensible precautions.
It is a thousand times more sensible for people entering a care home to be vaccinated than for a random person to be wearing a mask in a random shop.0 -
We'll have to see, but the early signs of quite a big dip in Tory support on Yougov are interesting, I would say.Jonathan said:
I’m not so sure. This being framed as it was on the 90s and 00s. Politics is very different now. Bubbles are largely impenetrable.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to, in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Many people have signed up to Boris because of, not inspite of his faults. I will be surprised if this has impact.
All the stories about Trump had no impact. He’s the favourite for 2024 despite an insurrection.
Those that love Corbyn, love him still.0 -
Many other countries in Europe seem to support it - France & Italy for a start.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Although I'm not sure what the PB "let the worthless old people die" lobby thinks.0 -
Well, I just disagree.eek said:
That article is from September - so I wonder where the law case is as it makes little sense to kick it off after the law comes into force.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
As for the rest - health and safety trumps whatever is written in a contract and a health related to a pandemic trumps absolutely everything...
I agree with the JR:
"The judicial review against the Health Secretary is being brought under five grounds:
- That the regulations are incompatible with laws prohibiting the enforcement of mandatory vaccines.
- That the Health Secretary failed to consider the efficacy of alternatives to mandatory vaccination and did not consider the vaccination rate of care homes and/or persons with natural immunity.
- That the regulations interfere with the public’s right to ‘bodily integrity’ and is severe, unnecessary, and disproportionate.
- That the regulations will disproportionately impact women and those who identify as Black/Caribbean/Black British, in contravention of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- That the regulations are irrational and will lead to shortages in both front-line and non-front line care workers."0 -
No 10 is a cesspit of corruption and lies and only those fully paid up members of the Bozo Cult refuse to accept that .2
-
You accuse the BBC political correspondence of lying ?Foxy said:
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!Big_G_NorthWales said:
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5Foxy said:
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.TOPPING said:It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
The FT covered it well the other day.
Why couldn't he declare that he was a paid lobbyist for the firm while doing so?Philip_Thompson said:
If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.Foxy said:
It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.Philip_Thompson said:
It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.Foxy said:
If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.TOPPING said:
(The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?0 -
Lateral flow tests are very fallible and have a very high false negative rate.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.0 -
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.TOPPING said:
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.0 -
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
I thought they had just been found to be much more accurate than previously believed.Philip_Thompson said:
Lateral flow tests are very fallible and have a very high false negative rate.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.0 -
I have a better idea. Like when you get dodgy councils or police forces, have it merged into a neighbour so that decency and standards can be applied.eek said:
Surely he should have done that a while ago.Scott_xP said:BREAKING: Yorkshire cricket chairman Roger Hutton RESIGNS amid racism storm
In explosive statement he claims;
*he experienced “a culture that refuses to accept change”
*”constant unwillingness from the Exec Board members & senior management to apologise and to accept racism”
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1456532119061155841/photo/1
Although I can see why he would want to resign rather than chair today's emergency meeting.
The club needs to be closed down and restarted with a whole new management team.
Arise GREATER LANCASHIRE Cricket Club.1 -
WhisperingOracle said:
We'll have to see, but the early signs of quite a big dip in Tory support on Yougov are interesting, I would say.Jonathan said:
I’m not so sure. This being framed as it was on the 90s and 00s. Politics is very different now. Bubbles are largely impenetrable.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to, in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Many people have signed up to Boris because of, not inspite of his faults. I will be surprised if this has impact.
All the stories about Trump had no impact. He’s the favourite for 2024 despite an insurrection.
Those that love Corbyn, love him still.
Very interesting, but will it last. Saying something negative in one survey is one thing, escaping a bubble is another altogether. It would be easier to escape a religious cult.WhisperingOracle said:
We'll have to see, but the early signs of quite a big dip in Tory support on Yougov are interesting, I would say.Jonathan said:
I’m not so sure. This being framed as it was on the 90s and 00s. Politics is very different now. Bubbles are largely impenetrable.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to, in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Many people have signed up to Boris because of, not inspite of his faults. I will be surprised if this has impact.
All the stories about Trump had no impact. He’s the favourite for 2024 despite an insurrection.
Those that love Corbyn, love him still.0 -
Absolutely. No one knows. But @Chris seems to apportion the blame to Paterson as being "ultimately responsible".IanB2 said:
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.TOPPING said:
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.1 -
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=36&LAB=35&LIB=8&Reform=5&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase0 -
Changing assumptions about existing contracts, and rendering clauses unenforceable, is a normal thing, isn't it?eek said:
That article is from September - so I wonder where the law case is as it makes little sense to kick it off after the law comes into force.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
As for the rest - health and safety trumps whatever is written in a contract and a health related to a pandemic trumps absolutely everything...
I'm sure it has happened multiple times in rental contract land.
The introduction of new assumptions is very often completely cocked-up and take umpteen rounds of Appeal Court action to become workable, but that doesn't negate the act.0 -
In a certain way this is the tension that many always expected to come to the surface with Johnson's culture war administration, including with Brexit ; a proud and unashamed toff also simultaneously posing as the voice of popuiist rebellion. It was bound to come to grief at some point.1
-
My understanding is they have an extremely low false positive rate.TOPPING said:
I thought they had just been found to be much more accurate than previously believed.Philip_Thompson said:
Lateral flow tests are very fallible and have a very high false negative rate.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.
The false negative rate is different.
I know someone who took two tests on the same day - the lateral flow said negative, the PCR test [taken same day] result that came back two days later said positive.0 -
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
Rather ironic, given that the Mail are saying the entire plan was the idea of some Telegraph Journalists and Editors.SandraMc said:Absolutely scathing opinion piece in today's Telegrpah by Fraser Nelson over the Paterson affair; Headline: "The Tories are behaving ike a tired government in its dying days."
Telegraph editorial, while sympathetic to Paterson and critical of Kathryn Stone, admits the government has handled it badly.1 -
Tbf, Paterson blamed the investigation for his wife's suicide. Had he not acted like he did and declared his lobbying there would have been no investigation.TOPPING said:
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.5 -
Those don't look very convincing to me.Stocky said:
Well, I just disagree.eek said:
That article is from September - so I wonder where the law case is as it makes little sense to kick it off after the law comes into force.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
As for the rest - health and safety trumps whatever is written in a contract and a health related to a pandemic trumps absolutely everything...
I agree with the JR:
"The judicial review against the Health Secretary is being brought under five grounds:
- That the regulations are incompatible with laws prohibiting the enforcement of mandatory vaccines.
- That the Health Secretary failed to consider the efficacy of alternatives to mandatory vaccination and did not consider the vaccination rate of care homes and/or persons with natural immunity.
- That the regulations interfere with the public’s right to ‘bodily integrity’ and is severe, unnecessary, and disproportionate.
- That the regulations will disproportionately impact women and those who identify as Black/Caribbean/Black British, in contravention of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- That the regulations are irrational and will lead to shortages in both front-line and non-front line care workers."
Persons with natural immunity to Covid? Is this a thing?
1 -
No - you agree with the people attempting to bring the Judicial Review.Stocky said:
Well, I just disagree.eek said:
That article is from September - so I wonder where the law case is as it makes little sense to kick it off after the law comes into force.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
As for the rest - health and safety trumps whatever is written in a contract and a health related to a pandemic trumps absolutely everything...
I agree with the JR:
"The judicial review against the Health Secretary is being brought under five grounds:
- That the regulations are incompatible with laws prohibiting the enforcement of mandatory vaccines.
- That the Health Secretary failed to consider the efficacy of alternatives to mandatory vaccination and did not consider the vaccination rate of care homes and/or persons with natural immunity.
- That the regulations interfere with the public’s right to ‘bodily integrity’ and is severe, unnecessary, and disproportionate.
- That the regulations will disproportionately impact women and those who identify as Black/Caribbean/Black British, in contravention of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- That the regulations are irrational and will lead to shortages in both front-line and non-front line care workers."
But I will repeat my earlier question - that report was from mid September, where is that JR?0 -
Yep anecdotally I have heard many similar stories.Philip_Thompson said:
My understanding is they have an extremely low false positive rate.TOPPING said:
I thought they had just been found to be much more accurate than previously believed.Philip_Thompson said:
Lateral flow tests are very fallible and have a very high false negative rate.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.
The false negative rate is different.
I know someone who took two tests on the same day - the lateral flow said negative, the PCR test [taken same day] result that came back two days later said positive.
I was referring to the headline but hadn't read the detail:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-lateral-flow-tests-are-more-accurate-than-previously-thought-researchers-find-124334210 -
Sunak does meetings at Franca Manca, which is certainly far better than Pizza Express.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
Yes, that's quite right, and if PT would only read the report he'd know this. It is, of course, entirely coincidental that Paterson has only ever raised public interest concerns on behalf of just two companies who, entirely coincidentally, stood to benefit commercially from those concerns being raised.JohnLilburne said:
Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.Philip_Thompson said:
Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.IanB2 said:
But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.Philip_Thompson said:
If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.Foxy said:
It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.Philip_Thompson said:
It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.Foxy said:
If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.TOPPING said:
(The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?1 -
Absolutely. But all those enlightened folk on PB are then picking up that ball and running with it. Or jumping down into the sewer with Paterson to see it from another angle.MaxPB said:
Tbf, Paterson blamed the investigation for his wife's suicide. Had he not acted like he did and declared his lobbying there would have been no investigation.TOPPING said:
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.0 -
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.1 -
Nope, it's merely a question of legality - as I said it's perfectly possible that it's legal to insist on it on Health and Safety Grounds.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.
Furthermore it's perfectly possible to re-employ people on new terms and conditions, although that may not be necessary if say Health and Safety requirements make it a legal requirement.0 -
Detecting 80% of people who are infected still means missing 20% of people who are infected.TOPPING said:
Yep anecdotally I have heard many similar stories.Philip_Thompson said:
My understanding is they have an extremely low false positive rate.TOPPING said:
I thought they had just been found to be much more accurate than previously believed.Philip_Thompson said:
Lateral flow tests are very fallible and have a very high false negative rate.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.
The false negative rate is different.
I know someone who took two tests on the same day - the lateral flow said negative, the PCR test [taken same day] result that came back two days later said positive.
I was referring to the headline but hadn't read the detail:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-lateral-flow-tests-are-more-accurate-than-previously-thought-researchers-find-124334210 -
The idea that the Conservative party will suddenly rediscover it cares about integrity and public standards 24 hours after voting to change the rules that govern it I would describe as a long shot. There will fudge, fake contrition and a hailstorm of dead cats.1
-
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.0 -
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.0 -
Given that Sunak can afford to buy the whole Pizza Express and Franca Manca chains with the loose change he finds down the back of his sofa, while I think it will do wonders for his culinary choices I don't think it will help the man of the people schtick for the Cons.noneoftheabove said:
Sunak does meetings at Franca Manca, which is certainly far better than Pizza Express.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
Don't know. I'm not suggesting that the legal challenge will succeed.eek said:
No - you agree with the people attempting to bring the Judicial Review.Stocky said:
Well, I just disagree.eek said:
That article is from September - so I wonder where the law case is as it makes little sense to kick it off after the law comes into force.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
As for the rest - health and safety trumps whatever is written in a contract and a health related to a pandemic trumps absolutely everything...
I agree with the JR:
"The judicial review against the Health Secretary is being brought under five grounds:
- That the regulations are incompatible with laws prohibiting the enforcement of mandatory vaccines.
- That the Health Secretary failed to consider the efficacy of alternatives to mandatory vaccination and did not consider the vaccination rate of care homes and/or persons with natural immunity.
- That the regulations interfere with the public’s right to ‘bodily integrity’ and is severe, unnecessary, and disproportionate.
- That the regulations will disproportionately impact women and those who identify as Black/Caribbean/Black British, in contravention of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- That the regulations are irrational and will lead to shortages in both front-line and non-front line care workers."
But I will repeat my earlier question - that report was from mid September, where is that JR?
Re: your earlier point - that those losing their jobs will not be entitled for state benefits - is that right?0 -
There is compelling evidence David.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Vaccines do significant reduce the risk of the virus being passed on, even with Delta. They very significantly reduce it.
Yes we can say that being vaccinated makes others safer.1 -
Professor Michael Mina, Harvard School of Public Health, said: "There is a spectrum of infectious amounts of the COVID-19 virus and we show that LFTs are likely to detect cases 90-95% of the time when people are at their most infectious.Philip_Thompson said:
Detecting 80% of people who are infected still means missing 20% of people who are infected.TOPPING said:
Yep anecdotally I have heard many similar stories.Philip_Thompson said:
My understanding is they have an extremely low false positive rate.TOPPING said:
I thought they had just been found to be much more accurate than previously believed.Philip_Thompson said:
Lateral flow tests are very fallible and have a very high false negative rate.Stocky said:
Good point re legality;Philip_Thompson said:
You don't need to get consent of parties if there's been a change in the law, all parties already agree to obey the law at all times anyway.Stocky said:
It is the lack of care workers I'm referring to. Big issue.eek said:
Agree with what?Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work
or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....
If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
Plus, introducing a vaccination requirement for new employee's contracts is one thing, but introducing a contract change retrospectively without the consent of all parties?
And the fact that the legislation covers not just care workers but also anyone who enters a care home. As I understand it this means that someone who is not vaccinated (whether by choice, medical reason or because they have already had Covid and recovered) will not be able to visit their loved ones.
Edit: Also - see below:
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1656334/Care-home-workers
When smoking was banned in pubs, do you think that existing staff should have been allowed to continue to smoke without stepping outside?
If anyone wants to visit loved ones they can get vaccinated, rather than putting everybody else's loved ones at risk.
PS there's an exemption already for those who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons.
No one's putting anyone's health a risk - everyone is tested before entering, vaccinated or not, and has to wait thirty minutes before entry.
The false negative rate is different.
I know someone who took two tests on the same day - the lateral flow said negative, the PCR test [taken same day] result that came back two days later said positive.
I was referring to the headline but hadn't read the detail:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-lateral-flow-tests-are-more-accurate-than-previously-thought-researchers-find-12433421
"The tests could achieve even 100% sensitivity when viral loads are at their peak and therefore catch nearly everyone who is currently a serious risk to public health."0 -
Exclusive: the government's original analysis of the Australia trade deal would've shown a negative impact on Northern Ireland.
But officials have now changed their workings, so now it will show a positive impact 1/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-05/u-k-tweaks-the-math-after-trade-study-shows-pain-for-n-ireland?sref=yMmXm5Iy0 -
Voters didn’t exactly trip over themselves to back the party who took selfies in Nando’sTOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
The problem here is that this is a new intersection of privilege on the one hand, and sleaze and apparent double standards on the other.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
This is very potent, and makes it harder to look away towards things like Brexit or immigration, and the maverick, atypical toff standing alone, on your side on these issues. It also makes a clearer mockery than ever of the idea of the Tories being against "London" or the "metropolitan elite".
0 -
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.1 -
You may be right in which case I do not think that the attack on the basis of rationality is going to succeed. Do you have a link to such studies since delta became dominant?Philip_Thompson said:
There is compelling evidence David.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Vaccines do significant reduce the risk of the virus being passed on, even with Delta. They very significantly reduce it.
Yes we can say that being vaccinated makes others safer.
A JR must be brought within 3 months of the decision complained of. The clock is ticking.0 -
Congratulations, your fix (daily lateral flow tests) has just added £10 a day to all care home costs per worker... And it wouldn't work because those tests can generate false results and usually only really work a day or 2 after people have started to shred covid (i.e. started spreading it to other people).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Vaccinations are really the only way to solve the problem you wish to solve, everything else is just window dressing.
And I will ask the same question now for a third time. There was talk of a Judicial Review in September, where is it? As I suspect that was all talk and no care home is actually trying to get one.0 -
Equally - "no-one knows", but Paterson and other Tories have nevertheless been very quick to try and play the suicide as a point in their favour during this whole scandal, blaming the inquiry for it, despite (ISTM) the circumstances not entirely stacking up. Beyond that it would be unreasonable to speculate.TOPPING said:
Absolutely. No one knows. But @Chris seems to apportion the blame to Paterson as being "ultimately responsible".IanB2 said:
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.TOPPING said:
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.0 -
It was a further of many knee-jerk reactions to cover the gov's arse - smarting as it was from the shellacking it got early on about care home deaths. Their Care Home policies since then have sprouted directly from that experience and departed from logic and principle and categorical imperatives along the way.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.0 -
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.noneoftheabove said:
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.0 -
I agree it's the one rule for them thing that will/should stick. But it hasn't so far and god knows there have been enough examples of it with Boris' Cons govt.RochdalePioneers said:
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
People like him precisely because he is very clubbable, to use the term de jour, and a bit posh but not intimidatingly so. He makes them feel good and is fun to be with and watch.
Sleaze is the key.
I said some time ago Boris will fall but I can't for the life of me see how, why or when. Perhaps it will be the Cons favourite sleaze that does it.0 -
Pizza Express was sold for £900m a few years ago, beyond Sunak's reach and an expensive purchase even for his billionaire father in law. Not sure the relevance of all this as to whether politicians have to meet in private clubs or can actually go to some normal restaurants.TOPPING said:
Given that Sunak can afford to buy the whole Pizza Express and Franca Manca chains with the loose change he finds down the back of his sofa, while I think it will do wonders for his culinary choices I don't think it will help the man of the people schtick for the Cons.noneoftheabove said:
Sunak does meetings at Franca Manca, which is certainly far better than Pizza Express.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.1 -
The BBC? The one being threatened by the Culture Secretary?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You accuse the BBC political correspondence of lying ?Foxy said:
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!Big_G_NorthWales said:
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5Foxy said:
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.TOPPING said:It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
The FT covered it well the other day.
Why couldn't he declare that he was a paid lobbyist for the firm while doing so?Philip_Thompson said:
If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.Foxy said:
It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.Philip_Thompson said:
It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.Foxy said:
If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.TOPPING said:
(The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
Mr Cummings was pretty clear that it was to get Boris off the hook:
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1456200360259997702?t=jFxVB51oWeU8UyiYQaB3hg&s=19
1 -
I would, however, draw a distinction between 'supporters' and 'voters'. Those that love Corbyn, love him still. And those that love Boris, I imagine, love him still but it's hard to win and retain power relying on those who love you. Corbyn is a good example there.Jonathan said:
I’m not so sure. This being framed as it was on the 90s and 00s. Politics is very different now. Bubbles are largely impenetrable.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to, in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Many people have signed up to Boris because of, not inspite of his faults. I will be surprised if this has impact.
All the stories about Trump had no impact. He’s the favourite for 2024 despite an insurrection.
Those that love Corbyn, love him still.
Boris has some people with him who are motivated by pragmatism - they think he can win and in doing so, win for them. They don't love him and will not stick. Then there will be others, more numerous still and more disengaged from the day to day of politics. If this has cut through, some of them will not stick with him.
The phrase 'priced in' is also an interesting one, and has taken on a bit of a different tone. 'Priced in...'? You can almost hear the question mark in the voices of Conservatives. Because the thing about price is that everyone has theirs, but the inverse of price is cost. And everyone, as individuals, has their limit, as well as their price. A little bit of infidelity, a little bit of sleaze, a little bit of bounding cadery might all be priced in, in the minds of public... Until it isn't. I don't know if we're there yet, where something so egregious occurs that it exceeds 'priced in' but, to mix metaphors slightly, Boris's bubble feels just a little more brittle this morning, like it's been left out in the cold.2 -
It's a question of degree of risk isn't it - and I'm very concerned about the second-class citizen aspect of all this.DavidL said:
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.noneoftheabove said:
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
0 -
Indeed. Care workers should be getting their booster jabs already, let alone getting first jabs.MaxPB said:
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.1 -
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!HYUFD said:The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=36&LAB=35&LIB=8&Reform=5&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase1 -
He couldn't possibly, could he. That would surely be suicide-provoking for oneself!Philip_Thompson said:
He never said his actions led to his wife's suicide.noneoftheabove said:
If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
To answer your question:
Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.
As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
- worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
- voted on it himself instead of recusal
- demanded the investigators resign
- blamed everyone else
- said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide
then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.
I feel very sorry for him and his family over the death of Mrs P, but one way and another he got embroiled in a mess and, instead of stepping back and cleaning up, appears to have decided to try and brazen things out.
A tactic which, of course, sometimes works.1 -
You can order free LFTs every day from the govt where does the tenner come from. Or do you mean we the taxpayer?eek said:
Congratulations, your fix (daily lateral flow tests) has just added £10 a day to all care home costs per worker... And it wouldn't work because those tests can generate false results and usually only really work a day or 2 after people have started to shred covid (i.e. started spreading it to other people).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Vaccinations are really the only way to solve the problem you wish to solve, everything else is just window dressing.
And I will ask the same question now for a third time. There was talk of a Judicial Review in September, where is it? As I suspect that was all talk and no care home is actually trying to get one.0 -
Boris, claiming an urgent appointment, LITERALLY left the climate change summit in a private jet to dine on pheasant at a men-only private club.RochdalePioneers said:
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
And spent the time cooking up a scam to destroy parliament’s standards system.
If you scripted this for the BBC, you’d be accused of cliched, anti-Tory hatred.9 -
Which is why I noted that eg @Chris jumped on that bandwagon and did the same thing.IanB2 said:
Equally - "no-one knows", but Paterson and other Tories have nevertheless been very quick to try and play the suicide as a point in their favour during this whole scandal, blaming the inquiry for it, despite (ISTM) the circumstances not entirely stacking up. Beyond that it would be unreasonable to speculate.TOPPING said:
Absolutely. No one knows. But @Chris seems to apportion the blame to Paterson as being "ultimately responsible".IanB2 said:
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.TOPPING said:
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.Chris said:
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.JosiasJessop said:
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.Chris said:
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.JosiasJessop said:
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?Foxy said:
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.TOPPING said:
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.rcs1000 said:
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)JosiasJessop said:
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.rcs1000 said:
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.Andy_JS said:
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?dixiedean said:Summary. 6 by-elections.
LD 3 (+2)
Lab 2 (+1)
Con 1 (-2)
Ind 0 (-1)
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Classy as ever, Foxy ...
BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.0 -
For me the key point is that care residents like my nan have no choice but to be in the home.Stocky said:
It's a question of degree of risk isn't it - and I'm very concerned about the second-class citizen aspect of all this.DavidL said:
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.noneoftheabove said:
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Others do have a choice whether to get vaccinated or not.
My nan would not want people in her home unvaccinated. She didn't before she was forced to go into a care home. If care workers don't want to get vaccinated then that's their free choice, but they shouldn't be working with societies most vulnerable people then.1 -
Of course, all other alternatives would likely poll worse than Boris.RochdalePioneers said:Question - if this tidal wave of shit starts to engulf Boris and the party decides its time for him to do a Paterson, is it still Rishi as the heir apparent?
Though while I think Rishi would poll better than Boris in London, the South and Scotland I think he would poll worse than Boris in the Redwall0 -
How did it control for the mandatory isolation of those with the virus, both vaxxed and unvaxxed?MaxPB said:
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.0 -
The Chinese buyer of Pizza Express got rinsed. The current owners are the previous bond holders who did a debt for equity swap. They got the chain for well, well under half of what Hony paid.noneoftheabove said:
Pizza Express was sold for £900m a few years ago, beyond Sunak's reach and an expensive purchase even for his billionaire father in law. Not sure the relevance of all this as to whether politicians have to meet in private clubs or can actually go to some normal restaurants.TOPPING said:
Given that Sunak can afford to buy the whole Pizza Express and Franca Manca chains with the loose change he finds down the back of his sofa, while I think it will do wonders for his culinary choices I don't think it will help the man of the people schtick for the Cons.noneoftheabove said:
Sunak does meetings at Franca Manca, which is certainly far better than Pizza Express.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.0 -
Boris might run into trouble when his personal and political life collide. For the first time he has married to someone actively political. That limits his political room for manoeuvre. He can’t chuck this wife overboard.TOPPING said:
I agree it's the one rule for them thing that will/should stick. But it hasn't so far and god knows there have been enough examples of it with Boris' Cons govt.RochdalePioneers said:
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
People like him precisely because he is very clubbable, to use the term de jour, and a bit posh but not intimidatingly so. He makes them feel good and is fun to be with and watch.
Sleaze is the key.
I said some time ago Boris will fall but I can't for the life of me see how, why or when. Perhaps it will be the Cons favourite sleaze that does it.0 -
I wonder what Priti Patel (who has been protected by the PM) thinks of the way the PM has so quickly and publicly thrown Paterson under the bus after vowing to protect him.
It's not just backbench MPs who will be querying the PM's loyalty.1 -
What do you mean when you say "vaccinations are really the only way to solve the problem" given that Covid isn't going anywhere and being vaccinated doesn't mean you can't pass on the virus anyway?eek said:
Congratulations, your fix (daily lateral flow tests) has just added £10 a day to all care home costs per worker... And it wouldn't work because those tests can generate false results and usually only really work a day or 2 after people have started to shred covid (i.e. started spreading it to other people).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Vaccinations are really the only way to solve the problem you wish to solve, everything else is just window dressing.
And I will ask the same question now for a third time. There was talk of a Judicial Review in September, where is it? As I suspect that was all talk and no care home is actually trying to get one.0 -
I was talking about the Sunak extended family so yes £900m well within reach.noneoftheabove said:
Pizza Express was sold for £900m a few years ago, beyond Sunak's reach and an expensive purchase even for his billionaire father in law. Not sure the relevance of all this as to whether politicians have to meet in private clubs or can actually go to some normal restaurants.TOPPING said:
Given that Sunak can afford to buy the whole Pizza Express and Franca Manca chains with the loose change he finds down the back of his sofa, while I think it will do wonders for his culinary choices I don't think it will help the man of the people schtick for the Cons.noneoftheabove said:
Sunak does meetings at Franca Manca, which is certainly far better than Pizza Express.TOPPING said:
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?RochdalePioneers said:
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.Dura_Ace said:
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.WhisperingOracle said:
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.Jonathan said:Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
As for going to your local restaurant where randoms would whip out their phones and you might be sitting next to the reporter for the local rag? You tell me why they might choose to go to a club.0 -
Because they aren't going to be free forever and I was working on a discount compared to the £18 charged here for Day 2 travel tests (which are identical but with added paperwork for authentication purposes) https://www.arrivaldiagnostics.co.ukTOPPING said:
You can order free LFTs every day from the govt where does the tenner come from. Or do you mean we the taxpayer?eek said:
Congratulations, your fix (daily lateral flow tests) has just added £10 a day to all care home costs per worker... And it wouldn't work because those tests can generate false results and usually only really work a day or 2 after people have started to shred covid (i.e. started spreading it to other people).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Vaccinations are really the only way to solve the problem you wish to solve, everything else is just window dressing.
And I will ask the same question now for a third time. There was talk of a Judicial Review in September, where is it? As I suspect that was all talk and no care home is actually trying to get one.0 -
It doesn't because they study in household transmission of healthcare workers and their families for vaccinated vs transmission within unvaccinated households. It's not perfect but it will give us a fairly good idea.TOPPING said:
How did it control for the mandatory isolation of those with the virus, both vaxxed and unvaxxed?MaxPB said:
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).TOPPING said:
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).DavidL said:
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.Stocky said:
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.Stocky said:This could be the next big story.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061
Does anyone actually agree with this?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.1
This discussion has been closed.