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.
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
Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.
And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.
Why is that a problem for BritNats? Labour are as BritNat as the Conservatives?
Their voters in Scotland aren't - even after losing many voters to both the Tories and SNP. The current Labour voting population is split on the issue.
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
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
I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
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)
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.
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
Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.
And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.
Why is that a problem for BritNats? Labour are as BritNat as the Conservatives?
Their voters in Scotland aren't - even after losing many voters to both the Tories and SNP. The current Labour voting population is split on the issue.
Yepp. Up to 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
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?
Of course it is. It somehow picked up a bad name last year as the initial plan was to get less at risk people protection via infection (i.e. after they recover, they are a lot less likely to catch it again). As became apparent this would have meant 500,000 deaths in the UK and an overwhelmed health service, so we used lockdowns to suppress the virus. Now we have vaccines, we are providing protection without needing infection so the deaths should be much reduced. But its still a herd immunity approach.
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).
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
Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.
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 reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.
So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.
And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.
But it leaves him really exposed now.
Regarding Boris's childhood, soon after he became PM I visited a National Trust property and in the tea room I overheard a group of very upper middle class women discussing Boris. One of them said, with an accent that would make Penelope Keith sound rough: "But he comes from such a very peculiar family." A significant section of Conservative supporters have always seen him as what they would call "a rum cove."
Some on here would applaud a monkey if it had a blue rosette on, in the past I voted for Blair twice, lib dems, 2010, Miliband and then lib dem, and green last time, I would vote anyone but johnson party at the moment, where I live now, that would be labour, surely Dull but on top of his brief, beats moron. How people on here who seem intelligent enough people keep on supporting him is beyond me, although just like my Sons father in law, a staunch Tory, he will slag johnson off when he has gone, just like he does Theresa May, never said anything about her at the time, grow a pair, and slag the lying clown off now
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.
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
Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.
Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.
And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.
Why is that a problem for BritNats? Labour are as BritNat as the Conservatives?
Their voters in Scotland aren't - even after losing many voters to both the Tories and SNP. The current Labour voting population is split on the issue.
Yepp. Up to 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
Indeed. Are they ever going to vote for a Tory FM?
Not sure what the equivalent figure for LDs is, but they are below the SGs anyway at Holyrood.
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
I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
The assumption may be that, as all nationalists are obsessed with constitutional affairs to the exclusion of all else, not wanting one to run Scotland is a prerequisite for good government.
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
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
I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
The Conservative Party feels so different today even compared to 5 or 6 years ago. I was slower than some to notice the change, so it baffles me that there are still those who haven't spotted it. I'll be fascinated to see how it goes post-Boris, to see if they return to something of the noble principles and dour, sensible stewardship of the past. Conservatism is a sound guiding principle, and totally absent from cabinet today. Can it come back?
I think the change happened in Scotland with Ruth Davidson - more and more, albeit with hindsight, a Johnson avant la lettre, though a lot better organised and dressed. She was so much of a PR image and so single-slogan, so fixated on indyref 2 - much as Mr Johnson was Brexit - that I was never quite sure what the underlying policies were. And she remade the Scottish Tory party in her image, too.
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
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
Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.
Sky said European region so not sure how that is properly defined
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?
It has always been and will always be a thing.
The only question is *how* you acquire the immunity.
People seem to keep getting this bug and there is no herd immunity from things like flu as it evolves.
I hope you're right, but a moment of herd immunity, bosh done, appears as far away as ever.
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)
As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Trouble is that some of the posters are very sensible - upskirting, flashing, sexual comments, sexual contact etc. But it is undermined by bot the one on staring and the one on pressing up against someone. How the hell do you not press up against someone on a crowded tube train? The first rule of laws is that they must be enforceable. I don't see how some of these can be.
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
I'm making provision. It's called insurance. Yes a friend made it to 99 without needing more than home care. I am fit and healthy and hope I can do the same.
If I need to go into a home, how much will it cost me? Can I top it up to have a nicer care home and still benefit from the £86,000 cap on standard costs, and still get the basic costs paid for by the state afterwards?
Any payments paid towards care count towards the £86,000, however top ups to get the best food and the nicest rooms don't, you still pay that yourself.
Fair enough, the taxpayer should cover most of your care costs, the taxpayer should not cover the costs of ensuring your residential care home is luxurious
That's fair enough. At the moment you can't pay towards top-up costs yourself without making you a total self-funder.
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.
You'd think so. However...
YouGov’s monthly read-out on the Q: ‘Do you think that Boris Johnson is doing well or badly as Prime Minister?’.
On left: 29% well (-3 on 25 Oct); 64% badly (+4 on 25 Oct).
On right: crossover, as first time Johnson as PM registers a net negative rating among Leavers.
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?
Basically that every week is judged just on the that week, and that being star baker more than once is no guarantee of reaching the final. It was pretty obvious he was referring to Jurgen.
Most people are not political nerds like folks on here (apologies to any non nerds). I went for a check up at my dentist recently. The young dental nurse advised she had voted for Boris because he made her laugh. The politically aware dentist did suggest that might not be the best reason but she responded she knew nothing about politics and just voted for someone she likes.
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.
In my area they are being given separately. The flu jabs are given at the local surgery whilst boosters are using the dedicated vaccination centre at the local sports centre.
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 reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.
So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.
And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.
But it leaves him really exposed now.
Also, I don't think many people would have an issue with a 'front man' if he had backup behind him. If he's going to wing speeches, then why isn't some smart bod there writing the speech for him, put a few Boris florishes in there, but have it properly targeted, focused and messaged.
What you don't want is Boris making it up the day of the speech just throwing memes having a garbled mess with no real point of it. Which just about sums up his premiership right now.
I don't think he knows his limitations. The most basic people expect of a government is professionalism and compentancy and thats severely lacking with Boris, and I don't think he's capable of forming it.
I agree. And the risk for him is the vibe changes from "Such a card" to "Doesn't appear to give a shit". It's often said that one of Labour's problems is they seem to be sneering at folk. That they lack respect for the electorate. Whatever the merits of that, which are slim imo, the key point is that how Johnson speaks and behaves demonstrates exactly this - a fundamental lack of respect for other people. One can speculate where this comes from but it doesn't really matter. As you say it's ingrained, therefore won't be changing, but perhaps what he can do is try and hide it a bit better. Yesterday it was all hanging out.
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 reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.
So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.
And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.
But it leaves him really exposed now.
Your 1st para is so true. I once worked at a small company where it started getting very weird. Stuff not adding up. I left to set up my own business. Many of my customers were customers of my old firm but in a different role and I was now representing them. It became clear from talking to them that one of my old employer's salesman was a crook. I reported him to my old firm and he was fired. But the lies he had been telling were so convoluted and the effort he had to put in was so enormous to keep the facade up I thought it would have been easier to be honest. I came to the conclusion he was a sociopath by his actions. It was bound to collapse sometime, but I was impressed by the ability to keep up the deception up till then.
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.
In my area they are being given separately. The flu jabs are given at the local surgery whilst boosters are using the dedicated vaccination centre at the local sports centre.
Last year we were told you had to have a two week gap between the two jabs, but they had a trial in October which changed that advice.
As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Trouble is that some of the posters are very sensible - upskirting, flashing, sexual comments, sexual contact etc. But it is undermined by bot the one on staring and the one on pressing up against someone. How the hell do you not press up against someone on a crowded tube train? The first rule of laws is that they must be enforceable. I don't see how some of these can be.
#MeToo educated me in how common and awful sexual harassment is. So it’s not a bad idea for a campaign.
But it really gets on my tits when they try to add “staring”. Are we supposed to keep our eyes on the ground, lest someone be offended by a “look”.
(I am aware that leering is obnoxious, but one person’s leer is another person’s “my face just looks like this).
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)
Yep, you picked a bit of an outlier there. Even the mean and median are very different, so they must have a few very long stays.
The numbers from other trusts are still bad enough, that said.
Big problems with long stays in hospital due to a lack of better suited options, for sure.
When my Grandad died, in 2017 at the age of 97, it was after 14 days in hospital, where the mean and median length of stays are 10.1 and 4 days respectively.
He'd broken his hip, had an operation to fix that, picked up an infection, died due to the wall of part of his gastro-intestinal system disintegrating.
He'd already been living in a care home for some time. Even had he recovered I would have thought he would have been in hospital for a long time before he was ready to return to the care home.
I am sure there is lots that can be done to find more suitable places for some patients to convalesce, but you will always have some patients who are simply quite ill for a long time.
It might be organizationally simpler to have additional convalescent wards, appropriately staffed, so with fewer expensive medical staff, and then the transfer from one ward to another would be less of a threshold, and involve less of a turf war between funding bodies.
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
Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.
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
I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
The assumption may be that, as all nationalists are obsessed with constitutional affairs to the exclusion of all else, not wanting one to run Scotland is a prerequisite for good government.
That might make sense, were it not for the fact that Ross, Sarwar and Cole-Hamilton are also nationalists.
"Europe's latest wave of Covid authoritarianism has set a dangerous new precedent The absence of moral scruple in pursuit of what is thought to be a public good is the first symptom of totalitarianism JONATHAN SUMPTION" (£)
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.
In my area they are being given separately. The flu jabs are given at the local surgery whilst boosters are using the dedicated vaccination centre at the local sports centre.
Last year we were told you had to have a two week gap between the two jabs, but they had a trial in October which changed that advice.
I think though that it is more complicated than that. GP Surgeries make a lot of money out of flu jabs. I mean a really big part of their yearly income. So where possible they are trying to retain control of them rather than surrendering them to the vaccination centres. At the same time a lot of areas are still using vaccination centres and not devolving boosters to local GPs. So the scope for doing both at the same time is limited in many areas.
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 reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.
So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.
And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.
But it leaves him really exposed now.
Also, I don't think many people would have an issue with a 'front man' if he had backup behind him. If he's going to wing speeches, then why isn't some smart bod there writing the speech for him, put a few Boris florishes in there, but have it properly targeted, focused and messaged.
What you don't want is Boris making it up the day of the speech just throwing memes having a garbled mess with no real point of it. Which just about sums up his premiership right now.
I don't think he knows his limitations. The most basic people expect of a government is professionalism and compentancy and thats severely lacking with Boris, and I don't think he's capable of forming it.
I agree. And the risk for him is the vibe changes from "Such a card" to "Doesn't appear to give a shit". It's often said that one of Labour's problems is they seem to be sneering at folk. That they lack respect for the electorate. Whatever the merits of that, which are slim imo, the key point is that how Johnson speaks and behaves demonstrates exactly this - a fundamental lack of respect for other people. One can speculate where this comes from but it doesn't really matter. As you say it's ingrained, therefore won't be changing, but perhaps what he can do is try and hide it a bit better. Yesterday it was all hanging out.
Also the audience, namely the CBI, is already pretty irritated at the Conservatives after being ignored and derided. This was an opportunity to build bridges, what it has actually done is break the Employers irrevocably from Johnson personally. If some emergency repairs are not done then that could lead to a breakdown between the CBI and the Tories as a whole. It really is very damaging to tell many of your major backers that you neither like nor even respect them. "Fuck business", actually "Fuck you, Boris".
Most people are not political nerds like folks on here (apologies to any non nerds). I went for a check up at my dentist recently. The young dental nurse advised she had voted for Boris because he made her laugh. The politically aware dentist did suggest that might not be the best reason but she responded she knew nothing about politics and just voted for someone she likes.
Very common, I'd say, across all of society. Governing is complex, it takes a lot of time and effort to really understand the issues and make an informed decision, so why not go with instinct based on who you trust/like better? Partly what sunk Ed Miliband. My wife's not particularly politically engaged (she sometimes asks me how she should vote, depsite being very smart and highly educated - holds a PhD, earned more than me etc etc) and I remember watching the 2015 debates interviews with her and she thought Cameron looked like he would do a better job. We talked through some of the policy differences afterwards and she was more pro the Labour positions, on the whole (I obviously have my own biases, so may not have been entirely fair in presentation, although I tried to be). Not sure how she voted in the end; not even sure we discussed how we'd voted. Safe Lab seat at the time anyway, so pretty irrelevant.
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
I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
The Conservative Party feels so different today even compared to 5 or 6 years ago. I was slower than some to notice the change, so it baffles me that there are still those who haven't spotted it. I'll be fascinated to see how it goes post-Boris, to see if they return to something of the noble principles and dour, sensible stewardship of the past. Conservatism is a sound guiding principle, and totally absent from cabinet today. Can it come back?
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
Votes for pro independence parties in May 2021 ie SNP and Greens and Alba 49% on the constituency vote and 50.12% on the list.
Votes for Unionist parties in May 2021 ie Conservative and Labour and LD and All for Unity and Abolish the Scottish Parl, RefUK and UKIP 50.42% on the constituency vote and 47.94% on the list, so as I said about equally divided.
Therefore Boris can and will refuse indyref2 as long as he stays in power
Most people are not political nerds like folks on here (apologies to any non nerds). I went for a check up at my dentist recently. The young dental nurse advised she had voted for Boris because he made her laugh. The politically aware dentist did suggest that might not be the best reason but she responded she knew nothing about politics and just voted for someone she likes.
That's a very good point about the Boris phenomenon. The fact of the matter is that Boris does have a very endearing persona. I wonder how many of those who hate his politics, and claim to hate his style, secretly wishes he was on their side?
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.
Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.
It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.
Vs. this time last year we have 2x case numbers, half the hospitalizations and a third of the deaths. From here, we have increased social contact (exponential) vs. increased boosters (linear).
Last Winter, it took about a month for numbers in hospital to double. This Winter we have vaccines and immunity from previous infection so surely the rate of increase would be slower. Also molnupiravir and easy availability to lateral flow tests.
So I can't see numbers in hospital getting to 20k levels like first wave, although I expect them to increase.
Numbers in hospital are currently FALLING, not least due to the boosters. Over 15M given now.
I think probably that's more driven by the fact that cases were falling previously. More recent numbers in England hospitals seem to have inflected, although we will know more in a week or so.
I think it's very optimistic to think that boosters alone will be enough to counteract increased cases/increased R from Christmas.
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 reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.
So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.
And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.
But it leaves him really exposed now.
Also, I don't think many people would have an issue with a 'front man' if he had backup behind him. If he's going to wing speeches, then why isn't some smart bod there writing the speech for him, put a few Boris florishes in there, but have it properly targeted, focused and messaged.
What you don't want is Boris making it up the day of the speech just throwing memes having a garbled mess with no real point of it. Which just about sums up his premiership right now.
I don't think he knows his limitations. The most basic people expect of a government is professionalism and compentancy and thats severely lacking with Boris, and I don't think he's capable of forming it.
I agree. And the risk for him is the vibe changes from "Such a card" to "Doesn't appear to give a shit". It's often said that one of Labour's problems is they seem to be sneering at folk. That they lack respect for the electorate. Whatever the merits of that, which are slim imo, the key point is that how Johnson speaks and behaves demonstrates exactly this - a fundamental lack of respect for other people. One can speculate where this comes from but it doesn't really matter. As you say it's ingrained, therefore won't be changing, but perhaps what he can do is try and hide it a bit better. Yesterday it was all hanging out.
Also the audience, namely the CBI, is already pretty irritated at the Conservatives after being ignored and derided. This was an opportunity to build bridges, what it has actually done is break the Employers irrevocably from Johnson personally. If some emergency repairs are not done then that could lead to a breakdown between the CBI and the Tories as a whole. It really is very damaging to tell many of your major backers that you neither like nor even respect them. "Fuck business", actually "Fuck you, Boris".
They are not representative of employers. They are a self-selecting group who like feather-bedding, government subsidy and protection from competition.
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
That depends on what you mean by "get away with". If some people get frustrated at the intransigence of London and take their campaign away from the ballot boxes (and it only takes a minority), that's something for which the intransigent will be partially responsible for. Yes, Boris can get away with it because the consequences are pretty unlikely to touch him in a meaningful way, but to provoke disorder would shame and tarnish him in the eyes of a few of those who currently respect him.
If a minority of Nationalists try to resort to mob rule then that would tarnish them not Boris, legally they could do nothing about it.
There can be no change to the Union without Westminster consent, as confirmed by the Scotland Act 1998.
If Sturgeon tries to stir up violence amongst nationalists, which I am sure she won't, then she would invite arrest as the Spanish government and courts arrested Catalan nationalist leaders in 2017 for trying to pursue independence and UDI without Madrid's agreement
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
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
Votes for pro independence parties in May 2021 ie SNP and Greens and Alba 49% on the constituency vote and 50.12% on the list.
Votes for Unionist parties in May 2021 ie Conservative and Labour and LD and All for Unity and Abolish the Scottish Parl, RefUK and UKIP 50.42% on the constituency vote and 47.94% on the list, so as I said about equally divided.
Therefore Boris can and will refuse indyref2 as long as he stays in power
Unionists try to make Scots run the hurdles while they run a flat race.
The pro-independence parties won fair and square, under the electoral system established by Westminster. Trying to claim that it was a referendum-by-proxy after the event fools no-one.
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.
Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.
It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.
Vs. this time last year we have 2x case numbers, half the hospitalizations and a third of the deaths. From here, we have increased social contact (exponential) vs. increased boosters (linear).
Last Winter, it took about a month for numbers in hospital to double. This Winter we have vaccines and immunity from previous infection so surely the rate of increase would be slower. Also molnupiravir and easy availability to lateral flow tests.
So I can't see numbers in hospital getting to 20k levels like first wave, although I expect them to increase.
Numbers in hospital are currently FALLING, not least due to the boosters. Over 15M given now.
I think probably that's more driven by the fact that cases were falling previously. More recent numbers in England hospitals seem to have inflected, although we will know more in a week or so.
I think it's very optimistic to think that boosters alone will be enough to counteract increased cases/increased R from Christmas.
I don't. Remember who is in hospital. The unvaxxed and the frail and elderly. If the latter get boosted, it will help keep them out of the wards. We will eventually run out of feckwits who don't want the vaccine. I'm not convinced that with schools closed and people not at work (ok some people) the increase in R will be that big.
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
I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
The assumption may be that, as all nationalists are obsessed with constitutional affairs to the exclusion of all else, not wanting one to run Scotland is a prerequisite for good government.
That might make sense, were it not for the fact that Ross, Sarwar and Cole-Hamilton are also nationalists.
Indeed. On that basis perhaps their obsession with constitutional affairs is why the Britnat SCons will never manage better than a distant second in Holyrood?
'Who bangs on about independence more?
What can we infer from this? Scottish Labour has long been reluctant to talk up – or about – independence. The Scottish Conservatives, meanwhile, have been at the heart of the action – as we see from the most recent data for 2016-21. That might be why the Tories sit today as the second-largest party, rather than Labour. A landmark moment came in 2017 when Conservative MSPs, led by Ruth Davidson, were responsible for more mentions of independence (33 per cent of the total) than the governing SNP (30 per cent of the total). That was despite the Scottish Tories having fewer than half as many seats.'
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?
It was pretty obvious at the time. I have a lousy record on UK betting, but even I made money on Johnson.
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
Tory vote share at the GE wasn't 60%.
I think there's an enthusiasm effect. Anti-Tory, particularly anti-Boris, posters are currently more enthused to engage in discussion/polemic. We've seen this swing on here several times.
I’ve just realised there is no term limit on the London mayoralty and that effectively Sadiq is mayor for as long as he likes.
😭😭😭
As a non-Londoner, this doesn't bother me particularly. Indeed, I'd be happier if the previous London Mayor had stayed on much longer
You should care. Sadiq is effectively a do-nothing, apart from some occasional, ineffective value-signaling.
London (and thereby the U.K. taxpayer) is missing out on economic opportunities due to his seeming complete lack of interest in actually leading a global metropolis.
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
Remember the Tory posters are split between those that hate Boris and those that are loyal and my gut feel is those that hate Boris are a majority so it is easy to misread them as not Tories.
The only party that is over represented and consistently so (compared to the general population) in my opinion are the LDs.
As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Disagree with you there, GW. It's talking about men who go to town with the leering at women on public transport. Not the routine 'eying-up' but the full-on intimidating sexual stare. That's harassment, really, and it does happen. It's not so rare. This is to make those who make a habit of it think twice. My reaction to the poster was if anything surprise that I hadn't seen it mentioned before.
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
Tory vote share at the GE wasn't 60%.
I think there's an enthusiasm effect. Anti-Tory, particularly anti-Boris, posters are currently more enthused to engage in discussion/polemic. We've seen this swing on here several times.
However I would doubt even 43% of PB posters voted for Boris' Tories in 2019, less than the UK average.
By contrast I am pretty sure at least 36% of PB posters voted for Cameron's Tories in 2015, at least matching the UK average if not more.
This site is more anti Boris than anti Conservative as such
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
Tory vote share at the GE wasn't 60%.
I think there's an enthusiasm effect. Anti-Tory, particularly anti-Boris, posters are currently more enthused to engage in discussion/polemic. We've seen this swing on here several times.
However I would doubt even 43% of PB posters voted for Boris' Tories in 2019, less than the UK average.
By contrast I am pretty sure at least 36% of PB posters voted for Cameron's Tories in 2015, at least matching the UK average if not more.
This site is more anti Boris than anti Conservative as such
It could be quite some time post-Boris before any/many of those are tempted back.
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
Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.
Google population doesn't include all the Stans, so the population will be around 800 million?
I have no idea if it's overly pessimistic. But just looking at Germany. So far 100k deaths. There are over 3 million unvaccinated over 60s - most of them don't have immunity from prior infection. There could easily be 100k more deaths in this group over winter. I wouldn't be surprised if the death toll in Germany doubles, or worse.
The vaccinated won't put up with another lockdown (eg schools closed) imposed on us by the unvaccinated filling up intensive care, so I expect 2g rules to become standard everywhere soon.
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
Remember the Tory posters are split between those that hate Boris and those that are loyal and my gut feel is those that hate Boris are a majority so it is easy to misread them as not Tories.
The only party that is over represented and consistently so (compared to the general population) in my opinion are the LDs.
You would actually have to define what you mean by 'Tory' these days which isn't the easiest thing, That runs from old-school tory to liberals to Thatcherite to Cameronite to people supporting Boris.
I’ve just realised there is no term limit on the London mayoralty and that effectively Sadiq is mayor for as long as he likes.
😭😭😭
As a non-Londoner, this doesn't bother me particularly. Indeed, I'd be happier if the previous London Mayor had stayed on much longer
You should care. Sadiq is effectively a do-nothing, apart from some occasional, ineffective value-signaling.
London (and thereby the U.K. taxpayer) is missing out on economic opportunities due to his seeming complete lack of interest in actually leading a global metropolis.
He's also not doing anything to defend the interests and importance of London for central government. Look at Andy Burnham by contrast. Now, I know sceptics in the North will say London gets more than enough attention already (oh and is a "dump" too) but that should surely be a big part of the role of the Mayor, to argue the case for investment in London in a world where everything is about "levelling up".
As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Disagree with you there, GW. It's talking about men who go to town with the leering at women on public transport. Not the routine 'eying-up' but the full-on intimidating sexual stare. That's harassment, really, and it does happen. It's not so rare. This is to make those who make a habit of it think twice. My reaction to the poster was if anything surprise that I hadn't seen it mentioned before.
I don’t think it’s in the same category as other forms of harassment, because it’s somewhat subjective and completely unenforceable.
The campaign also encourages you to report suspicious staring to the authorities.
I’ve just realised there is no term limit on the London mayoralty and that effectively Sadiq is mayor for as long as he likes.
😭😭😭
As a non-Londoner, this doesn't bother me particularly. Indeed, I'd be happier if the previous London Mayor had stayed on much longer
You should care. Sadiq is effectively a do-nothing, apart from some occasional, ineffective value-signaling.
London (and thereby the U.K. taxpayer) is missing out on economic opportunities due to his seeming complete lack of interest in actually leading a global metropolis.
Possibly, you underestimate the capacity of an adoptive northerner to cut off his economic growth generating nose to spite his southern face.
But, more likely, you overestimate the seriousness of my original comment.
Limited terms would seem to make sense, though - at least limited contiguous terms so that someone else with some new ideas (or indeed, any ideas) gets a go.
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Disagree with you there, GW. It's talking about men who go to town with the leering at women on public transport. Not the routine 'eying-up' but the full-on intimidating sexual stare. That's harassment, really, and it does happen. It's not so rare. This is to make those who make a habit of it think twice. My reaction to the poster was if anything surprise that I hadn't seen it mentioned before.
I once got in mild trouble with that - a girl on the Tube had a T-shirt with a slogan on it, not in especially large letters. I'm short-sighted so I absent-mindedly looked a bit closer to read it, and got an accusing glare. I immediately realised why I was being glared at, but saying "Sorry, I was only trying to read your slogan" seemed, while true, to make it even worse, so I hastily looked away. I now consciously avoid peering at T-shirt slogans...
A bit like those bumper stickers which say "If you can read this, you're too close".
As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Disagree with you there, GW. It's talking about men who go to town with the leering at women on public transport. Not the routine 'eying-up' but the full-on intimidating sexual stare. That's harassment, really, and it does happen. It's not so rare. This is to make those who make a habit of it think twice. My reaction to the poster was if anything surprise that I hadn't seen it mentioned before.
But as I said that is unenforceable. It is akin to the old Not the Nine O'clock news 'Savage' sketch. Arresting people for 'looking at me in a funny way'. I agree it is a problem and I agree it would be great to dissuade it but practically you are putting laws in place that are, at best, never going to be enforceable (if you need hard evidence) and at worst a charter for anyone who wants to complain about perfectly innocent people (if all you need is the word of the supposed victim).
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
So you voted directly and personally for Boris Johnson, assuming your first was for the LibDem?
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?
Basically that every week is judged just on the that week, and that being star baker more than once is no guarantee of reaching the final. It was pretty obvious he was referring to Jurgen.
Ah ok. Well they certainly proved that with the Jurgen elimination. I didn't like it though. He deserved to make the final and on top of that he's a very nice guy. Ok, German, but not a trace of 'wanting to dominate Europe with an undervalued currency' as far as I could detect. Still, I won't let it spoil tonight for me. Roll on 8 o'clock!
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
I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.
Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.
I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?
I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.
Remember the Tory posters are split between those that hate Boris and those that are loyal and my gut feel is those that hate Boris are a majority so it is easy to misread them as not Tories.
The only party that is over represented and consistently so (compared to the general population) in my opinion are the LDs.
You would actually have to define what you mean by 'Tory' these days which isn't the easiest thing, That runs from old-school tory to liberals to Thatcherite to Cameronite to people supporting Boris.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics - Second jobs, not public service - Serving clients, not constituents - Peppa Pig, not promoting productivity
The only constant is the blue rosettes, greed and jingoism.
The Pope has praised Sir David Amess for years of "devoted public service" in a message read at his requiem mass at Westminster Cathedral (which also saw Starmer deep in conversation with Priti Patel?)
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
So you voted directly and personally for Boris Johnson, assuming your first was for the LibDem?
I (think) I voted for Boris twice.
Ken was looking quite crooked by the end of his second term, and Boris felt part of the modernising, Primrose Hill breed of Tory.
I can’t remember Boris’s first campaign, but the campaign against him was quite pathetic, effectively just saying he was too racist for London.
Boris’s first term seemed quite good. He got rid of Ken’s deranged bendy buses, and brought back the Routemaster.
Even the garden bridge is not a bad idea unto itself, it’s just that Boris didn’t look into the detail before spending tens of millions of pounds on it.
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
Votes for pro independence parties in May 2021 ie SNP and Greens and Alba 49% on the constituency vote and 50.12% on the list.
Votes for Unionist parties in May 2021 ie Conservative and Labour and LD and All for Unity and Abolish the Scottish Parl, RefUK and UKIP 50.42% on the constituency vote and 47.94% on the list, so as I said about equally divided.
Therefore Boris can and will refuse indyref2 as long as he stays in power
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.
FWIW as someone who's had a bit of contact with him, I think he's genuinely bright, but doesn't usually bother to apply it, since he's found that winging it is enough to win in every walk of life, so long as you're also affable and amusing. That has yet to be disproved, but I agree he's testing it to destruction. I do wonder if he's altogether well at the moment - he's arguably going beyond winging it to something more extreme.
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
So you voted directly and personally for Boris Johnson, assuming your first was for the LibDem?
I (think) I voted for Boris twice.
Ken was looking quite crooked by the end of his second term, and Boris felt part of the modernising, Primrose Hill breed of Tory.
I can’t remember Boris’s first campaign, but the campaign against him was quite pathetic, effectively just saying he was too racist for London.
Boris’s first term seemed quite good. He got rid of Ken’s deranged bendy buses, and brought back the Routemaster.
Even the garden bridge is not a bad idea unto itself, it’s just that Boris didn’t look into the detail before spending tens of millions of pounds on it.
If the Pfizer vaccine is less durable, it might explain why countries with apparently similar levels of vaccination to the UK - but with Pfizer the predominant jab - are now experiencing higher levels of hospitalisation and deaths. The seemingly better T-cell response that comes from the AstraZeneca vaccine may mean it gives longer protection, despite an apparently inferior initial antibody response.
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
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
To get a No win in an Indyref2, first you need an Indyref2.
If the Pfizer vaccine is less durable, it might explain why countries with apparently similar levels of vaccination to the UK - but with Pfizer the predominant jab - are now experiencing higher levels of hospitalisation and deaths. The seemingly better T-cell response that comes from the AstraZeneca vaccine may mean it gives longer protection, despite an apparently inferior initial antibody response.
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
To get a No win in an Indyref2, first you need an Indyref2.
You also probably need a Labour PM to make a No most likely again now, hence Boris is also refusing indyref2 as the best chance of saving the Union until we ever get a Labour PM again
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?
Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was
If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?
How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?
Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
So you voted directly and personally for Boris Johnson, assuming your first was for the LibDem?
I (think) I voted for Boris twice.
Ken was looking quite crooked by the end of his second term, and Boris felt part of the modernising, Primrose Hill breed of Tory.
I can’t remember Boris’s first campaign, but the campaign against him was quite pathetic, effectively just saying he was too racist for London.
Boris’s first term seemed quite good. He got rid of Ken’s deranged bendy buses, and brought back the Routemaster.
Even the garden bridge is not a bad idea unto itself, it’s just that Boris didn’t look into the detail before spending tens of millions of pounds on it.
Oh god the bendy buses. They were so awful.
They were really, really bad, and probably responsible for a couple of percentage points off Livingstone’s tally.
Incidentally the revived Routemaster shows one of Boris’s strengths.
A dispassionate bureaucrat would have told you that it was impossible to revive the Routemaster, and that no other city on Earth had any call for that apparently irrational form factor.
Boris went and found a manufacturer and got them made. They work well, in my opinion, and jolly up the cityscape (even if you can’t, contra promise, jump on the back mid-transit, like you could the old ones).
Comments
Anti-independence legislators = ?
Speaker = 1
Fill in the gaps.
Scots are not as thick as you think they are.
As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?
Yep, you picked a bit of an outlier there. Even the mean and median are very different, so they must have a few very long stays.
The numbers from other trusts are still bad enough, that said.
Big problems with long stays in hospital due to a lack of better suited options, for sure.
A sensible person would be using hospitalisation rates for a comparison.
Not sure what the equivalent figure for LDs is, but they are below the SGs anyway at Holyrood.
I saw on on the commute this morning.
Ridiculous.
Compare her with Annabel Goldie.
I hope you're right, but a moment of herd immunity, bosh done, appears as far away as ever.
YouGov’s monthly read-out on the Q: ‘Do you think that Boris Johnson is doing well or badly as Prime Minister?’.
On left: 29% well (-3 on 25 Oct); 64% badly (+4 on 25 Oct).
On right: crossover, as first time Johnson as PM registers a net negative rating among Leavers.
https://t.co/6wLdRbylpZ
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/30/flu-covid-jabs-safe-same-time-study
But it really gets on my tits when they try to add “staring”. Are we supposed to keep our eyes on the ground, lest someone be offended by a “look”.
(I am aware that leering is obnoxious, but one person’s leer is another person’s “my face just looks like this).
He'd broken his hip, had an operation to fix that, picked up an infection, died due to the wall of part of his gastro-intestinal system disintegrating.
He'd already been living in a care home for some time. Even had he recovered I would have thought he would have been in hospital for a long time before he was ready to return to the care home.
I am sure there is lots that can be done to find more suitable places for some patients to convalesce, but you will always have some patients who are simply quite ill for a long time.
It might be organizationally simpler to have additional convalescent wards, appropriately staffed, so with fewer expensive medical staff, and then the transfer from one ward to another would be less of a threshold, and involve less of a turf war between funding bodies.
https://www.euro.who.int/en/countries
(it also includes the UK...)
Google population doesn't include all the Stans, so the population will be around 800 million?
The absence of moral scruple in pursuit of what is thought to be a public good is the first symptom of totalitarianism
JONATHAN SUMPTION" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/22/europes-new-wave-covid-authoritarianism-has-set-dangerous-new/
But the thing that struck me about yesterday’s coverage was the rather cold-eyed contempt.
It felt like a new tone, and it was wide-spread.
Votes for pro independence parties in May 2021 ie SNP and Greens and Alba 49% on the constituency vote and 50.12% on the list.
Votes for Unionist parties in May 2021 ie Conservative and Labour and LD and All for Unity and Abolish the Scottish Parl, RefUK and UKIP 50.42% on the constituency vote and 47.94% on the list, so as I said about equally divided.
Therefore Boris can and will refuse indyref2 as long as he stays in power
😭😭😭
I think it's very optimistic to think that boosters alone will be enough to counteract increased cases/increased R from Christmas.
There can be no change to the Union without Westminster consent, as confirmed by the Scotland Act 1998.
If Sturgeon tries to stir up violence amongst nationalists, which I am sure she won't, then she would invite arrest as the Spanish government and courts arrested Catalan nationalist leaders in 2017 for trying to pursue independence and UDI without Madrid's agreement
The pro-independence parties won fair and square, under the electoral system established by Westminster. Trying to claim that it was a referendum-by-proxy after the event fools no-one.
It's a theory, I suppose.
Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.
I'm not convinced that with schools closed and people not at work (ok some people) the increase in R will be that big.
'Who bangs on about independence more?
What can we infer from this? Scottish Labour has long been reluctant to talk up – or about – independence. The Scottish Conservatives, meanwhile, have been at the heart of the action – as we see from the most recent data for 2016-21. That might be why the Tories sit today as the second-largest party, rather than Labour.
A landmark moment came in 2017 when Conservative MSPs, led by Ruth Davidson, were responsible for more mentions of independence (33 per cent of the total) than the governing SNP (30 per cent of the total). That was despite the Scottish Tories having fewer than half as many seats.'
https://tinyurl.com/4k73znr5
I have a lousy record on UK betting, but even I made money on Johnson.
Yes EVS
No 13/9
I think there's an enthusiasm effect. Anti-Tory, particularly anti-Boris, posters are currently more enthused to engage in discussion/polemic. We've seen this swing on here several times.
Sadiq is effectively a do-nothing, apart from some occasional, ineffective value-signaling.
London (and thereby the U.K. taxpayer) is missing out on economic opportunities due to his seeming complete lack of interest in actually leading a global metropolis.
Was this among your acquaintances in general? In the mass media? Twitter? Down at the Dog & Duck?
The only party that is over represented and consistently so (compared to the general population) in my opinion are the LDs.
By contrast I am pretty sure at least 36% of PB posters voted for Cameron's Tories in 2015, at least matching the UK average if not more.
This site is more anti Boris than anti Conservative as such
The vaccinated won't put up with another lockdown (eg schools closed) imposed on us by the unvaccinated filling up intensive care, so I expect 2g rules to become standard everywhere soon.
As long as we Tories remain in power, we will never allow an indyref2 anyway
The campaign also encourages you to report suspicious staring to the authorities.
TfL has always had a weird, authoritarian style…
But, more likely, you overestimate the seriousness of my original comment.
Limited terms would seem to make sense, though - at least limited contiguous terms so that someone else with some new ideas (or indeed, any ideas) gets a go.
A bit like those bumper stickers which say "If you can read this, you're too close".
If the change sticks then it will be an interesting test of how important that remains in a social media world.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-59384577
Do you see any likely candidates there, or do you think the Tories will have to find someone else?
There does seem to be a new, slightly raised, anxiety abroad.
- English Nationalist, not One Nation
- Revolutionary, not Conservative
- High tax/high debt, not Friedman
- State control, not free market
- Social engineering, not conservatism
- Nasty, not paternal
- Reactive, not confident
- Populist, not principled
- Clown, not competence
- Degenerate, not moral
- Cash for pals, not good governance
- Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation
- Fuck business, not pro business
- Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law
- Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions
- Authoritarian, not liberal
- Corruption, not ethics
- Second jobs, not public service
- Serving clients, not constituents
- Peppa Pig, not promoting productivity
The only constant is the blue rosettes, greed and jingoism.
All living former Conservative PMs plus Boris were in attendance too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59386018
Ken was looking quite crooked by the end of his second term, and Boris felt part of the modernising, Primrose Hill breed of Tory.
I can’t remember Boris’s first campaign, but the campaign against him was quite pathetic, effectively just saying he was too racist for London.
Boris’s first term seemed quite good. He got rid of Ken’s deranged bendy buses, and brought back the Routemaster.
Even the garden bridge is not a bad idea unto itself, it’s just that Boris didn’t look into the detail before spending tens of millions of pounds on it.
How novel.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/23/astrazeneca-lost-vaccine-battle-europe-us-now-winning-war/
Bang goes Starmer's chances of DUP support in a hung parliament then
https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1463129064420651011?s=20
The criteria for a border poll is set out in detail and the DUP get no real say.
Incidentally the revived Routemaster shows one of Boris’s strengths.
A dispassionate bureaucrat would have told you that it was impossible to revive the Routemaster, and that no other city on Earth had any call for that apparently irrational form factor.
Boris went and found a manufacturer and got them made. They work well, in my opinion, and jolly up the cityscape (even if you can’t, contra promise, jump on the back mid-transit, like you could the old ones).
They will not support a UK government not committed to back the Union even if the GFA criteria for a border poll are met
And wanting something to be true makes it so, doesn't it?