Today’s Times main leader won’t go down well at Number 10 – politicalbetting.com

MaxPB said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

There is no contradiction.

BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

And that's it,

And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?

And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.

Apparently it's British

Only is Hasbro is British?

rcs1000 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

There was always the possibility with Johnson that he was simply too lazy to do the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/22/johnson-losing-the-confidence-of-tory-party-after-rambling-cbi-speech

It's interesting that other commentators blamed yesterday on BoZo being too busy

There is no contradiction.

BoZo attended 3 events yesterday, but didn't prepare properly for any of them.

He is doing too much, and too lazy to do any of it well.

BJ shouldn't have to do too much preparation for these things, which is the bit that is most concerning. He should sit down with a member of the Number 10 communications office a week before for five minutes, and should agree the main points of the speech (pandemic behind us, loosening of restrictions, Brexit done, etc.), and then they go away and write the speech.

A couple of days before, BJ should read whatever the communications office wrote for his speech, make a few annotations, and then it goes back.

And that's it,

And even if BJ is too busy or lazy to do either part one, or part two, the speech should still be written according to the schedule because he has a good Chief of Staff that knows that speeches have to be ready to deliver.

That this did not happen suggests that the internal workings of Number 10 are not as we would expect. Why is that?

And written and presented in a way that makes for easy reading. Cameron had his speeches in plastic inners so he couldn't get them out of order. Brown had them in large print for his poor eyesight. Blair had pauses and emphasis annotated.

Aside from the vroom noise and hand up for Peppa Pig (which is American btw), and the already parodied "forgive me" shuffling, the rest of the speech wasn't much better. Disjointed, read much too fast, not flowing. He was winging it at the Peppa Pig section as well, flipping pages as he started speaking.

Peppa Pig is not American!

Its owned by Americans...

Peppa Pig is owned by the American Hasbro who bought the Canadian firm Entertainment One who bought the British owners of Peppa Pig. This illustrates another problem which is the buying up (and/or selling out) of successful British companies to foreign owners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro

ETA what @RochdalePioneers said more eloquently than me (and he types faster!).

It was never, apparently, offered to the BBC, because the Corporation messed about with a previous offering from the owners and originators, the Elf Factory, so the team took umbrage. See 'How Peppa Pig brought home the bacon' in the FT from 30/7/2010.
Yet another 'error' from Johnson, but one calculated to bring discredit on the BBC.

I wonder where the BBC would have got $3.9 billion from to spend on a childrens' TV character in 2019?

It would appear that they could have had it for a lot less back in the day. They would then have had a share in said $3.9billion.

How? The BBC has never really been involved with it.

See the article to which I referred. Can't share due to FT copyright rules.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

The median house price of seats the Tories held in 2019 was £270,000. Hold those and that would be enough to ensure the Tories still had most seats at least.

For the vast majority of estates the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care stops them losing potentially all their assets over £23,250 in residential care costs as is the case now

'Median'.

'Seats the Tories held.'

In other words - **** the Labour voters.

Edit: Which is a perfectly valid psephological strategy (IF that median assumption doesn't derail it).

But is it a way to run a modern state without robbing the poor even more?

It's a way to end up continually subsidising the North for evermore - but HYUFD isn't bright enough to understand that.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'

It's not a tax

Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.

If you are in hospital though you are normally only there for your operation and afterwards before returning home.

If you go to a care home you are generally a permanent resident until death

You're mistaken, Hyfud.

Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.

I do wonder how many of those 270 days could be done a lot cheaper (and more pleasantly) in care homes. Sadly, however, that sector is so destroyed it isn't going to happen without a lot of careful thought and a lot of investment.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'

It's not a tax

Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.

Well yes. If the argument is that the funding models should be the same then one or the other needs to change. I'm not clear that they should be the same. There's another way to do this, through general taxation and a wealth tax. I don't know whether that's the right way or not. It's far too complicated for the limited amount of attention I've given it.

I don't know why there was nobody flying the flag for "it's a start".

Labour could, for example, easily pledge to raise the floor or lower the cap. Once there is an insurance market, they could pledge that the state would pay the insurance for some people - or everyone.

If they were feeling radical, they could extend it to hotel costs - or start a national care service that provides hotel costs free to those in need.

Social and long-term sick care is in a MESS. This proposal, arguably is a sort of start, but to say it's a good answer is to demonstrate ignorance of enormous proportions.

eek said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'

It's not a tax

Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.

If you are in hospital though you are normally only there for your operation and afterwards before returning home.

If you go to a care home you are generally a permanent resident until death

You're mistaken, Hyfud.

Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.

I do wonder how many of those 270 days could be done a lot cheaper (and more pleasantly) in care homes. Sadly, however, that sector is so destroyed it isn't going to happen without a lot of careful thought and a lot of investment.

Careful thought is absolutely right. And the investment isn't just in bricks and mortar; it's staff.

eek said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

The median house price of seats the Tories held in 2019 was £270,000. Hold those and that would be enough to ensure the Tories still had most seats at least.

For the vast majority of estates the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care stops them losing potentially all their assets over £23,250 in residential care costs as is the case now

'Median'.

'Seats the Tories held.'

In other words - **** the Labour voters.

Edit: Which is a perfectly valid psephological strategy (IF that median assumption doesn't derail it).

But is it a way to run a modern state without robbing the poor even more?

It's a way to end up continually subsidising the North for evermore - but HYUFD isn't bright enough to understand that.

I am not unaccountably reminded of Matthew 13:12:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

IshmaelZ said:

LostPassword said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

@RochdalePioneers what you might be overlooking is that Boris has a big constituency that like it when he sends up the office of PM and the political establishment that goes along with it.

Whilst that and the affectation make him doubly unfit for office, the act will still get support. Trump still gets support after an insurrection and advocating injecting bleach, Boris will be supported after PigGate and other nonsense.

I agree that he *had* that big constituency. Not sure the same is true now. Not in sufficient numbers to keep them in office.

I fear there is a lot of wishful thinking about. It is clear that the media narrative has moved against Johnson, but the effect on the polls is relatively modest, and there is every indication that it will be temporary.

I still struggle to understand the mindset of Johnson supporters, when the act has never worked on me, but I think there might be an air of, "Whoever we vote for we'll still have a government running things, taxing, lying and messing things up, but at least with Boris we have a government running things, taxing, lying, messing things up *and* we'll get to have a laugh once in a while."

Cynicism works for Johnson. The Opposition will have to convince people to believe that they can be better. That's going to be incredibly difficult.

Joke's not funny any more.

Is anyone saying that who was finding it funny before? I've never found the joke funny. A lot of people never did. But I'm not convinced that I'm hearing people who did find it funny have changed their minds.

Farooq said:

Endillion said:

Your regular reminder (usually from me, whenever this line about Boris only beating "discredited" opponents is bandied about) that Livingstone and (especially) Corbyn are only discredited because Johnson beat them, not the other way around.

That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

Scotland will remain massively SNP until the end of this political era. I don't think who leads Labour is really the issue. All political eras eventually end and transition into another, but remember that Labour had a solid hold on Scotland for decades...

I look forward to the period when the SNP collapse. It’s the independence era.

Not necessarily.

If Starmer becomes PM needing SNP support and grants them an indyref2 which No again narrowly wins, then could be the time for the SNP vote to start to fall back to Labour too.

It was the 51% No to independence vote in Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 which gradually led to a decline in the BQ vote after, certainly at the Federal level.

In 1993 for example remember the BQ were the official opposition to the Liberals in Canada with 54 seats, that fell to 44 in 1997 and to 38 in 2000.

At provincial level the Liberals also returned to government in Quebec by the 2003 election

They don't grow maple syrup in Scotland. (Though we do have a former MSP who spoke French as a first language.) Maybe there are other differences, no?

One difference is that Canada has preserved 16 Canadian-Scottish regiments plus a regiment of artillery while the Scotland has one. Perhaps with HYUFD-esque cunning the powers that be have planned ahead for the insurrection to come.

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

Endillion said:

Farooq said:

Endillion said:

Your regular reminder (usually from me, whenever this line about Boris only beating "discredited" opponents is bandied about) that Livingstone and (especially) Corbyn are only discredited because Johnson beat them, not the other way around.

That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

If Corbyn had won in 2019, no-one would be saying he was discredited. It would simply be taken as a sign that all the attempts to discredit him had either not worked, or backfired. Your point that elections are tests of credibility is absolutely correct - and it is primarily because of Johnson's results that we know he has it. By extension, if you view him negatively (as many on here do), it is therefore absolutely necessary to view his defeated past opponents as having been worse.

I don't think that is necessary. You can think Johnson is a total charlatan yet acknowledge his ability as an election winner. The downside with this view - which is my view - is that it gets you more frustrated with the public than with him, which is not a great place to be.

Eabhal said:

Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

Week ending | 5-year average (pre-COVID) | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | Excess non-COVID deaths
24-Sep-21: 9,264 | 888 | 9,796 | 532
01-Oct-21: 9,377 | 783 | 9,727 | 350
08-Oct-21: 9,555 | 666 | 10,141 | 586
15-Oct-21: 9,811 | 713 | 10,464 | 653
22-Oct-21: 9,865 | 792 | 10,516 | 651
29-Oct-21: 9,759 | 859 | 10,128 | 369
05-Nov-21: 9,891 | 995 | 10,555 | 664
12-Nov-21: 10,331 | 1,020 | 11,030 | 699

Excess non-COVID deaths are fairly steady at the moment.

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.

eek said:

Eabhal said:

Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

Supposedly we've hit lucky with the flu vaccine and it's protecting against this year's main flu strains.

Bigger question is who has actually had it given that the plan seems to be to offer it alongside booster shots.

We had ours in September because it's something I sort out as soon as they become available due to missing out in the past.

Aiui the shortage of flu jabs didn't materialise either and everyone who wanted one was able to get one. People can still walk in and get one if they want as well.

Like so many scare stories it feels like this was manufactured by agenda having blue tick wankers. Same as the supposed petrol shortage that never was or the turkey shortage that definitely isn't (Waitrose had freezers full of them over the weekend). The only thing I've seen short at the moment is a few types of pasta but even then it's still available generally just not always.

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.

Your radar is still in tip top working order, not a fan.
I did hear whispers of the German master baker though.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'

It's not a tax

Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.

If you are in hospital though you are normally only there for your operation and afterwards before returning home.

If you go to a care home you are generally a permanent resident until death

You're mistaken, Hyfud.

Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.

Not necessarily disputing that, but do you have a link to a study? There are plenty of gotchas in hospital data analysis due, for example, to incorrect data. There will be people in the data who have been in hospital since 1 January 1800 (I think that's the value that gets filled in if the data are missing) and a few of those, if not accounted for, can obviously skew the mean to ridiculous extents.

TLDR: Where was the figure from and did someone competent produce it?

(I'm also reminded, on the other side of the data quality argument, of a famous incident of someone rubbishing NHS data because of the high number of obstetrics episodes for males - might even have been in published paper, letter to bmj or the like... People with more knowledge of the data pointed out that male babies have obstetrics episodes, just as much as female babies and half as much as mothers)

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

MaxPB said:

eek said:

Eabhal said:

Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

Supposedly we've hit lucky with the flu vaccine and it's protecting against this year's main flu strains.

Bigger question is who has actually had it given that the plan seems to be to offer it alongside booster shots.

We had ours in September because it's something I sort out as soon as they become available due to missing out in the past.

Aiui the shortage of flu jabs didn't materialise either and everyone who wanted one was able to get one. People can still walk in and get one if they want as well.

Like so many scare stories it feels like this was manufactured by agenda having blue tick wankers. Same as the supposed petrol shortage that never was or the turkey shortage that definitely isn't (Waitrose had freezers full of them over the weekend). The only thing I've seen short at the moment is a few types of pasta but even then it's still available generally just not always.

I think it's reasonable to keep an eye on it and include it in a set of modelling scenarios. Problem is twitter distills it into a panic.

There are two schools of thought online - with no flu past year, herd immunity has dropped off and we are more vulnerable. Or - flu had had no room to mutate, so much less potent.

I'd forgotten that the flu vaccine is hit and miss, hope eek is right.

Somebody said earlier that the tipping point would come when enough of his supporters stopped laughing with Boris and started laughing at him. I think we're getting close to that point, but not quite there yet.

I think it's time for the opposition to encourage the trend to laughing at Boris by taking the piss out of him more. Probably not Starmer himself, though the odd jibe wouldn't go amiss, but his henchmen and women should start pointing out what a ridiculous figure the PM is. There's plenty of material to draw on from the last few weeks.

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Farooq said:

Endillion said:

Your regular reminder (usually from me, whenever this line about Boris only beating "discredited" opponents is bandied about) that Livingstone and (especially) Corbyn are only discredited because Johnson beat them, not the other way around.

That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead

Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense

JohnLilburne said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

The median house price of seats the Tories held in 2019 was £270,000. Hold those and that would be enough to ensure the Tories still had most seats at least.

For the vast majority of estates the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care stops them losing potentially all their assets over £23,250 in residential care costs as is the case now

So I'm going to have to find £86,000 plus hotel costs plus the top-up to get somewhere that doesn't smell of wee. I believe from the new rules that you can top up yourself. So how much will I need? And what happens to your state pension when you go into a care home?

The whole subject is extremely complex with many variables not least the question whether the NHS has a requirement to cover costs under CHC and the actual time in care

My sisters terminal cancer diagnosis meant Wales NHS paid her 18 months in nursing care but as is the case in this and dementia care the pension is surrendered

I do not know the answer short of huge tax increases and as the Labour spokesperson said this morning the rich will need to be taxed but could not explain just how that would work

In the end you even run out of rich people to tax

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

Jonathan said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).

Is herd immunity still a thing?

Better believe it. Else we're all doomed (© Private Frazer).

Selebian said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'

It's not a tax

Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.

If you are in hospital though you are normally only there for your operation and afterwards before returning home.

If you go to a care home you are generally a permanent resident until death

You're mistaken, Hyfud.

Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.

Not necessarily disputing that, but do you have a link to a study? There are plenty of gotchas in hospital data analysis due, for example, to incorrect data. There will be people in the data who have been in hospital since 1 January 1800 (I think that's the value that gets filled in if the data are missing) and a few of those, if not accounted for, can obviously skew the mean to ridiculous extents.

TLDR: Where was the figure from and did someone competent produce it?

(I'm also reminded, on the other side of the data quality argument, of a famous incident of someone rubbishing NHS data because of the high number of obstetrics episodes for males - might even have been in published paper, letter to bmj or the like... People with more knowledge of the data pointed out that male babies have obstetrics episodes, just as much as female babies and half as much as mothers)

Data is here:

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/find-data-and-publications/supplementary-information/2019-supplementary-information-files/mean-and-median-length-of-stay-of-hospital-inpatient-episodes

I was of course picking the worst Trust, which, as noted, are all mental health Trusts and not as indicative of the wider NHS estate.

You can also have a look at:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/urgent-emergency-care/reducing-length-of-stay/reducing-long-term-stays/

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.

Really tricky. I kind of knew Jurgen wouldn't be in the final after what Hollywood said on Extra Slice a few weeks ago (each episode is judged stand alone, so past bakes have no influence, except weirdly in the final then they do seem to use it). Its clear that the four of them would probably have one previous years, so good have they been, so how do you get from 4 to 3? You can say its nitpicking from Hollywood, but splitting four very close results is really hard.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

There have already been 1.4 million covid deaths in Europe since 2020 but most of those were pre vaccination

StuartDickson said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Anabobazina said:

We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.

He really, really doesn't

God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes

I’m intrigued by the concept that Boris Johnson is “gifted” and has a “powerful intelligence”.

“Gifted” is normally a quality attributed to a child or young adult. There is something tragic about saying it of a man close to 60.

The only evidence I’ve ever seen for him having a “powerful intelligence” is him narrowly losing the Greeks vs Romans debate to Professor Mary Beard. It was a surprisingly close call and not the Prof walkover you’d expect. (A truly intelligent debater would have whopped Beard, as it is blatantly obvious that the Greeks were more impressive.)

Pericles and his ilk succumbed to the Plague of Athens. Johnson and his despicable ilk will be remembered as the Plague of England.

In my experience, anyone who has ilk is a bad egg

Selebian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well. Then you would probably get a swingback in Scotland from SNP to Labour if No won again yes

mwadams said:

Selebian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.

ETA: (The UK is at about 2/1000pop deaths from covid so far)

JohnLilburne said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

The median house price of seats the Tories held in 2019 was £270,000. Hold those and that would be enough to ensure the Tories still had most seats at least.

For the vast majority of estates the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care stops them losing potentially all their assets over £23,250 in residential care costs as is the case now

So I'm going to have to find £86,000 plus hotel costs plus the top-up to get somewhere that doesn't smell of wee. I believe from the new rules that you can top up yourself. So how much will I need? And what happens to your state pension when you go into a care home?

Only if you need residential care, which most people won't, not if you only need at home domestic care.

However that would still be better than now where you can lose all your assets to pay for residential care costs over £23,500 with no cap plus you also have to pay for hotel costs and top up costs too

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

Some of that, for sure. But I think Brexit works even more powerfully the other way. Johnson has banked enormous credit with Leavers for breaking the impasse and driving it through. Not only that but the style in which he did it. The Brexit Wars in many ways were a war and via Johnson the Leave side achieved total victory. The forces of Remain were utterly crushed. That has to feel brilliant. Imagine how Hard Remainers would have felt if they'd managed to pull off another vote and then cancellation of the whole shebang. So, doing the 'empathize with others' thing, I definitely understand why it'll take an awful lot for his supporters in the Leave community to abandon him.

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well. Then you would probably get a swingback in Scotland from SNP to Labour if No won again yes

At least we're getting to the nub of the matter, BJ won't allow indy ref II because BJ would lose indy ref II, a truth that even his most dewy eyed supporters know in their bones.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland

We're discussing the odds of Con FMs, tbf. Not something else.

I do not care who runs Scotland as long as it is a Unionist.

I don't live there I just want to keep the UK together, yes I would like Ross best of all but Sarwar would also be miles better than Sturgeon

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?

Those of us that have been around the block more times than we care to remember... well... remember!

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.

Really tricky. I kind of knew Jurgen wouldn't be in the final after what Hollywood said on Extra Slice a few weeks ago (each episode is judged stand alone, so past bakes have no influence, except weirdly in the final then they do seem to use it). Its clear that the four of them would probably have one previous years, so good have they been, so how do you get from 4 to 3? You can say its nitpicking from Hollywood, but splitting four very close results is really hard.

Ah interesting. I didn't see that Extra Slice you refer to there. What did he say?

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well

And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.

If the SNP were on 60% of the vote and 60% of Scots + wanted independence that might be true.

When the SNP got less than 50% of the vote in May and Scots are still divided 50% 50% on independence at most in the majority of polls then Boris can get away with refusing indyref2 indefinitely and he will as long as the Tories stay in power

TimS said:

NerysHughes said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

I wonder what Sadiq Khans approval rating will be at the end of his 2nd term

80% for "don't really care either way" I suspect. It's quite remarkable how the profile of the Mayor of London, and indeed the office of Mayor, has slipped so far below the radar.

Not really. Their main power was TfL and thanks to the pandemic that is reduced to begging from the govt who in turn make the actual policies like the changes to the congestion zone. Livingstone and Johnson were better at bluffing that the role was important, but in reality it is not.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland

You really do not have a clue about Scots independence

Ever since I was in Primary School in Berwick in the 1950s the siren voices of independence were in full voice

Even losing a referendum will not kill the desire stone dead in some

There will always be a hard core of a a third of Scots who are diehard nationalists, however a No win in an indyref2 or a Unionist FM again would mean the average Scot had firmly moved on from the idea and accepted the Union is staying. Probably with devomax too

mwadams said:

mwadams said:

Selebian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.

ETA: (The UK is at about 2/1000pop deaths from covid so far)

OWiD puts Europe confirmed deaths ~1.4 million and 1.85/1000 pop, so more like 2.6/1000 to get to 2 million in OWiD stats. Maybe different sources/definitions? Depends of course on what counts as a death and on the denominator population.

Edit: I'd still hope that's overly pessimistic