The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Rayner and Miliband represent a broad soft-left constituency in the party. If he consciously antagonises them, as he appears to be doing in at least one case, and possibly at the behest of some of his team with links to a 1990's approach, he could have big trouble.
What's he doing to Ed? I agree that both are soft left, and frankly they aren't the target. The reality is that Rayner - a proud Blairite remember, just listen to her passionate description of how His government transformed her life chances - is the remaining totem of the hard left.
She seems to enjoy that role as she indulges in mouth-foaming rants about Tory scum which cause the Labour party considerable harm. That one speech alone was enough for Starmer to bin her off.
The makeup of the party is such that Starmer just can't do that. The membership is still further to the left than in the late 1990's, quite clearly, and she and Miliband link the left, the soft-left and Starmer. He antagonises them at his party's, and electoral prospect's, peril.
Naah. The people who do all the work are in the centre or the right of the party. So its no cost to activists. And the members elected Starmer on a huge majority so the job is his as long as he wants to keep it.
The voters - the people who matter - do not back hard left lunacy. Elections are always won from the centre ground.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
I don't know. The public seem to lurch from one extreme to the other. We seem to go from lockdown all down yesterday, its a disgrace the government haven't done it yet, they are killing everybody, to what Boris said the pubs can reopen, sporting events are able to have crowds, but please try and be responsible....NAAA NAAA DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB...TIME TO HUG EVERYBODY IN THE PUB.
In which case they are completely useless - Boris / no Tory leader is going to hold an election under the existing boundaries. And they don't change to October 23.
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
I agree with you. May 24 for me. Outsider late 23. May 23 - No.
November 23 is my favourite - waiting until May 24 just adds extra risk that you wouldn't want to take.
November 23rd will always be a very special day. The birthday of the long running TV series, Dr Who
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 49s Starmer sounds onto something with this spin document that urges staff to call "refurbishment" of hospitals "new hospitals". Would be interesting to see the actual document #PMQs
This is truly stupid politics from the Tories. People know what a hospital is. They believe, I think, that a new hospital does not equal a new ward/facility at an existing hospital. Calling it a new hospital doesn't make it one.
In which case they are completely useless - Boris / no Tory leader is going to hold an election under the existing boundaries. And they don't change to October 23.
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
The election will be in October 2023. New boundaries. Additional pretext to refuse IndyRef 2 on timing grounds. Avoids running down the clock and being caught out by events.
Caveat that if the Tories are behind by double digits in mid-2023 then running down the clock and hoping for a narrative-changing event will be all they have left.
I stayed away because I'm prioritising my trip to Bath, and I don't want to catch anything that would put that at risk beforehand. Completely bizarre, but necessary precaution in the circumstances, while we're still doing mass testing.
[snip]
Actually I think that is a key point: people do, very sensibly, want to try to avoid putting at risk the highest priority events and trips they've got planned. So it's entirely natural to ditch the less important ones if they might be a bit risky in terms of getting infected, even mildly.
Paper candidate pact between the Lib Dems and Labour is clearly happening.
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
It's one thing in a couple of by elections. It won't happen in a GE
It did in 1997.
Yes but then there was Blair and now, unlike then, there are serious reasons to be repelled by the party.
If you mean "the Left" I'd say they have no more power in the party now than they had back then.
Well, kind of. Starmer has IMO done a first-rate job in many ways. I don't think anyone could have done better. But it's illiberal aspects; I mean the ease at which the party accepts state restrictions on liberties and the identity politics-cancel culture stuff. I sense that many are on a knife-edge about changing their Tory votes but are very conscious of these two things.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
For what it's worth: the curry house was empty last night when I went with a couple of mates.
How busy would it normally be on a cold Tuesday night in November?
I didn't go to knit group on Monday. In the end only one person did, and they obviously didn't stay long in the pub on their own.
Pre-pandemic 8-12 people was the normal range.
I stayed away because I'm prioritising my trip to Bath, and I don't want to catch anything that would put that at risk beforehand. Completely bizarre, but necessary precaution in the circumstances, while we're still doing mass testing.
Our work decided a while ago to make the Christmas do online again. Pretty sure the lack of the novelty value will mean it suffers, but work were good about posting us all a drink beforehand last year so fingers crossed for small mercies.
Zoom 'parties' are the very definition of the First Circle of Hell.
I'm expecting to be on the M6 and M5 for this one, so I'll have an excuse for dropping out if it's intolerable.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
I don't know. The public seem to lurch from one extreme to the other. We seem to go from lockdown all down yesterday, its a disgrace the government haven't done it yet, they are killing everybody, to what Boris said the pubs can reopen, sporting events are able to have crowds, but please try and be responsible....NAAA NAAA DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB...TIME TO HUG EVERYBODY IN THE PUB.
Yes, you keep saying this, but I see no evidence that that's the case. What exactly do you have against pubs by the way? You seem obsessed with them Francis!
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 49s Starmer sounds onto something with this spin document that urges staff to call "refurbishment" of hospitals "new hospitals". Would be interesting to see the actual document #PMQs
This is truly stupid politics from the Tories. People know what a hospital is. They believe, I think, that a new hospital does not equal a new ward/facility at an existing hospital. Calling it a new hospital doesn't make it one.
At Southampton General Hospital the maternity building is called Princess Anne Hospital. It is on the same site as the General Hospital and has been there since 1981, yet it is a different Hospital (even though its not).
Paper candidate pact between the Lib Dems and Labour is clearly happening.
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
It's one thing in a couple of by elections. It won't happen in a GE
It did in 1997.
Yes but then there was Blair and now, unlike then, there are serious reasons to be repelled by the party.
If you mean "the Left" I'd say they have no more power in the party now than they had back then.
Well, kind of. Starmer has IMO done a first-rate job in many ways. I don't think anyone could have done better. But it's illiberal aspects; I mean the ease at which the party accepts state restrictions on liberties and the identity politics-cancel culture stuff. I sense that many are on a knife-edge about changing their Tory votes but are very conscious of these two things.
The combination of expanding immigration and backing identity politics makes a lot of voters worry. It is effectively saying to people "we will bring in a lot of people to your country, and then berate you for it being your fault when they don't do well."
Paper candidate pact between the Lib Dems and Labour is clearly happening.
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
It's one thing in a couple of by elections. It won't happen in a GE
It did in 1997.
Yes but then there was Blair and now, unlike then, there are serious reasons to be repelled by the party.
If you mean "the Left" I'd say they have no more power in the party now than they had back then.
Well, kind of. Starmer has IMO done a first-rate job in many ways. I don't think anyone could have done better. But it's illiberal aspects; I mean the ease at which the party accepts state restrictions on liberties and the identity politics-cancel culture stuff. I sense that many are on a knife-edge about changing their Tory votes but are very conscious of these two things.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 49s Starmer sounds onto something with this spin document that urges staff to call "refurbishment" of hospitals "new hospitals". Would be interesting to see the actual document #PMQs
This is truly stupid politics from the Tories. People know what a hospital is. They believe, I think, that a new hospital does not equal a new ward/facility at an existing hospital. Calling it a new hospital doesn't make it one.
Just like levelling up nonsense, it's all bullshit, there is nothing this Government and in particular, the liar in chief, will not lie about
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
I don't know. The public seem to lurch from one extreme to the other. We seem to go from lockdown all down yesterday, its a disgrace the government haven't done it yet, they are killing everybody, to what Boris said the pubs can reopen, sporting events are able to have crowds, but please try and be responsible....NAAA NAAA DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB...TIME TO HUG EVERYBODY IN THE PUB.
Yes, you keep saying this, but I see no evidence that that's the case. What exactly do you have against pubs by the way? You seem obsessed with them Francis!
You didn't have to look very hard to see what I am talking about at the cricket and football. Everybody just totally went nuts and forgot any semblance of being just being a bit cautious. Even the Piers Moron let his guard down, hugging 100s of people at the footy and got COVID.
We also have seen this consistently when we have had hospitality shut down / open up. One last big night out, everywhere rammed, before they close, then the same when they open.
Nothing against pubs, just saying many people don't seem to go for the happy medium during this pandemic. Its an all or nothing.
Thinking about the stick @Dura_Ace got yesterday it occurs to me that environmentalists like DA who are refusing to get vaccinated for animal-rights reasons are acting in a counter-productive way for the planet.
I mean the virus, by attacking the unvaccinated, is disproportionally wiping out those who take this environmentalist stance leaving a higher proportion of non-environmentalists still standing.
Therefore, DA should get vaccinated for the good of the planet.
I stayed away because I'm prioritising my trip to Bath, and I don't want to catch anything that would put that at risk beforehand. Completely bizarre, but necessary precaution in the circumstances, while we're still doing mass testing.
[snip]
Actually I think that is a key point: people do, very sensibly, want to try to avoid putting at risk the highest priority events and trips they've got planned. So it's entirely natural to ditch the less important ones if they might be a bit risky in terms of getting infected, even mildly.
My issue is people accepting invitations then dropping out at very short notice, which has happened to me (as an organiser of Christmas parties). You are at liberty to decline an invitation – but don't accept then cry off at short notice because you have a better offer within ten days.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
SKS's first question had to be on Omicron, another sign of him being a bad politician
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
I don't know. The public seem to lurch from one extreme to the other. We seem to go from lockdown all down yesterday, its a disgrace the government haven't done it yet, they are killing everybody, to what Boris said the pubs can reopen, sporting events are able to have crowds, but please try and be responsible....NAAA NAAA DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB...TIME TO HUG EVERYBODY IN THE PUB.
Yes, you keep saying this, but I see no evidence that that's the case. What exactly do you have against pubs by the way? You seem obsessed with them Francis!
You didn't have to look very hard to see what I am talking about at the cricket and football. Everybody just totally went nuts and forgot any semblance of being just being a bit cautious. Even the Piers Moron let his guard down and got COVID.
We also have seen this consistently when we have had hospitality shut down / open up. One last big night out, everywhere rammed, before they close, then the same when they open.
'everyone' or a few people? I think you'll find it's the latter.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
I reckon Starmer is the sort to love a good Zoom party....
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
They are the joyless and judgemental
They (as in the Labour Party) really are not. They love a knees-up. But the leadership, and the line, can certainly present as if they are.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
I don't know. The public seem to lurch from one extreme to the other. We seem to go from lockdown all down yesterday, its a disgrace the government haven't done it yet, they are killing everybody, to what Boris said the pubs can reopen, sporting events are able to have crowds, but please try and be responsible....NAAA NAAA DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB, DOWN THE PUB...TIME TO HUG EVERYBODY IN THE PUB.
Yes, you keep saying this, but I see no evidence that that's the case. What exactly do you have against pubs by the way? You seem obsessed with them Francis!
You didn't have to look very hard to see what I am talking about at the cricket and football. Everybody just totally went nuts and forgot any semblance of being just being a bit cautious. Even the Piers Moron let his guard down and got COVID.
We also have seen this consistently when we have had hospitality shut down / open up. One last big night out, everywhere rammed, before they close, then the same when they open.
'everyone' or a few people? I think you'll find it's the latter.
The summer, it was absolutely not a few, hence why we got a big spike in COVID.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
Labour were miles ahead of the LDs at the last election in North Shropshire. Why are they almost certainly going to come third this time? Seems like an interesting question to me.
Because the Lib Dems seem to have woken up after the 2019 general election and started campaigning properly again, perhaps. The result was at the last round of local elections they came within a whisker of winning half a dozen county/unitary seats in the North Shropshire constituency, and then just carried on campaigning. And this has continued seamlessly into the byelection, with the Westminster candidate from last time standing as the candidate this time too, and almost winning a county/unitary seat on the way.
In contrast, Labour dropped their candidate who stood at the last three Westminster elections - seemingly not without a measure of ill-will. And Labour are busy fighting things out among themselves even at the highest level of the party, as today's news stories show.
The results of the 2019 general election are now ancient history. And I hear tell that a lot of people who voted Conservative then did so only because they were afraid of a Corbyn government. This is no longer the case.
'Time to think about mandatory vaccination' across the entire EU. How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union - this needs discussion. This needs a common approach.' - Ursula von der Leyen
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
In which case they are completely useless - Boris / no Tory leader is going to hold an election under the existing boundaries. And they don't change to October 23.
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
I agree with you. May 24 for me. Outsider late 23. May 23 - No.
November 23 is my favourite - waiting until May 24 just adds extra risk that you wouldn't want to take.
Tempting with a good poll lead but I more see the risk the other way. Only way BJ stops being PM is by calling and losing an election so I think his default will be to carry on into 2024. Bank that extra 6 months.
Video has emerged of a group of men spitting at a bus full of Jewish teenagers in Oxford Street where the group were celebrating the first night of Chanukah.
I presume under twitter new rules this sort of thing will be banned, as the individuals spitting and hitting the bus with their shoes haven't given written consent to have their faces shown.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
"Cancel your big Christmas party and have a couple of small ones instead"
"Avoid 'making merry', don't hug your relatives"
Holy shit these people have gone completely power mad.
This is Sarah Pitt btw.
There was a piece in one of the sundays about how Whitty is very worried that if they do have to lock us all down and so on again this xmas, the public will just raise two fingers and ignore them.
He has said that he was misquoted. He was discussing a hypothetical, but said that he thought the public will follow new guidance. This BBC article covers what he said more accurately: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59434196
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
They are the joyless and judgemental
Is that meant to be a joke? If it is I suggest you keep the next one to yourself. Your posts are those of an utter plonker quite frankly.
A new building at an existing hospital is not a new hospital no matter how stupid the government think people are.
Well, that does depend on definition.
A year or so ago, Papworth Hospital near me was shut, and moved next to the site of the Addenbrookes Hospital. This was, IMO, a bad move. But that is two hospitals on essentially one site; and depending how you define the Rosie Maternity Hospital, more than two. But Addenbrookes and Rosie are run by the same trust; Papworth is independent.
So are two hospitals run on the same site (e.g. Addenbrookes and Rosie) by the same trust independent hospitals? They are treated as such (friends say they had their children at 'Rosie', not 'Addenrbookes').
This has been made worse by hospital centralisation over the last thirty or forty years.
Labour were miles ahead of the LDs at the last election in North Shropshire. Why are they almost certainly going to come third this time? Seems like an interesting question to me.
Because the Lib Dems seem to have woken up after the 2019 general election and started campaigning properly again, perhaps. The result was at the last round of local elections they came within a whisker of winning half a dozen county/unitary seats in the North Shropshire constituency, and then just carried on campaigning. And this has continued seamlessly into the byelection, with the Westminster candidate from last time standing as the candidate this time too, and almost winning a county/unitary seat on the way.
In contrast, Labour dropped their candidate who stood at the last three Westminster elections - seemingly not without a measure of ill-will. And Labour are busy fighting things out among themselves even at the highest level of the party, as today's news stories show.
The results of the 2019 general election are now ancient history. And I hear tell that a lot of people who voted Conservative then did so only because they were afraid of a Corbyn government. This is no longer the case.
Two of the reasons for the improvement in LibDem campaigning, I think, are the election of Mark Pack as president of the LibDems and the extra donations received during the 2019 general election.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
"Between November 2011 and 30 June 2020, a total of 37,026 bridging visas were granted to asylum seekers who arrived by boat. As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away. "
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
If we followed her advice we still be in the same lockdown that started last Christmas....
On 99% of reports, this variant is a severe cold. It's been around for weeks. You ought to read more widely. It's clearly not an emergency so stop complying with illegal measures, as Lord Sumption said
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
If we followed her advice we still be in the same lockdown that started last Christmas....
On 99% of reports, this variant is a severe cold. It's been around for weeks. You ought to read more widely. It's clearly not an emergency so stop complying with illegal measures, as Lord Sumption said
One can't get much more senior than a former Supreme Court Justice.
That's wasn't me saying that, it was a direct quote from the most lockdowny lockdowner among the zero covid lot. The equivalent of somebody who thinks we should ban all cars because no speed limit is too low to stop deaths on the road and we must eliminate all of them.
OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.
Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.
Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .
Hmmm. I'll go as far as strong scrutiny is required.
As for "locking on" and similar, that is a declaration by an individual or group of individuals that their personal opinions are so important that it is OK to prevent members of society, whether people or organisations, going about their lawful business.
Of course it's correct that such behaviour should have a penalty, and I hope that those who choose to cause disruption are held personally responsible for the damage and costs they choose to impose on others. They of course have the option of holding a demonstration that does not wreck others' lives; they choose not too and there should be consequences.
ER/IB are one stage worse in that they are willing to cause serious harm to vulnerable individuals by blocking access to hospitals etc. I would term that sociopathic, as someone who would be dead now except for a rapid life-saving journey to A&E some years ago - of exactly the type being blocked by IB.
On a more general front, Monbiot is completely out of his tree at present.
He broadcast films of himself weeping for the poor ickle narcissists of IB, and seems not to give a toss for the lives or welfare of their victims. He needs to get back to planet earth.
A new building at an existing hospital is not a new hospital no matter how stupid the government think people are.
Well, that does depend on definition.
A year or so ago, Papworth Hospital near me was shut, and moved next to the site of the Addenbrookes Hospital. This was, IMO, a bad move. But that is two hospitals on essentially one site; and depending how you define the Rosie Maternity Hospital, more than two. But Addenbrookes and Rosie are run by the same trust; Papworth is independent.
So are two hospitals run on the same site (e.g. Addenbrookes and Rosie) by the same trust independent hospitals? They are treated as such (friends say they had their children at 'Rosie', not 'Addenrbookes').
This has been made worse by hospital centralisation over the last thirty or forty years.
Sometimes more than one trust will run different departments of the same hospital. Is that one or more hospitals? It is all a complete mess really with this smorgasbord of departments, hospitals, trusts, CCG and nation NHS's. How it manages to operate at all is a mystery to me.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
If we followed her advice we still be in the same lockdown that started last Christmas....
On 99% of reports, this variant is a severe cold. It's been around for weeks. You ought to read more widely. It's clearly not an emergency so stop complying with illegal measures, as Lord Sumption said
One can't get much more senior than a former Supreme Court Justice.
That's wasn't me saying that, it was a direct quote from the most lockdowny lockdowner among the zero covid lot. The equivalent of somebody who thinks we should ban all cars because no speed limit is too low to stop deaths on the road and we must eliminate all of them.
TBF you should have put quotes around the quoted para: on first reading I thought you were saying it, even though it conflicted with your last line.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
They are the joyless and judgemental
They (as in the Labour Party) really are not. They love a knees-up. But the leadership, and the line, can certainly present as if they are.
Joyless and judgemental! - What tosh.
We're a broad church and our services are destination events.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Again its not about asylum numbers, its about the numbers coming via boats.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
My main take away from PMQs was Rachel Reeves sad eyes as it seemed to dawn on her that no matter how well SKS did she'd be on the losing side next GE.
Starmer is clearly not a bad politician. To go from 25 points behind to tied is impressive.
Whether he’s a great politician, only time will tell.
12 years into a a Tory Government and being tied midterm in the polls is impressive?
Labour should be 10-15 clear at this stage
That is grade A bollox. We are just 2 years after a landslide Con election victory.
That’s very rudely put Kinny. That Conservatives can’t see or acknowledge how much more of a threat libdems and Labour will be to them next time and how much less potent Boris and his promises will be next time is actually very funny.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Rayner and Miliband represent a broad soft-left constituency in the party. If he consciously antagonises them, as he appears to be doing in at least one case, and possibly at the behest of some of his team with links to a 1990's approach, he could have big trouble.
What's he doing to Ed? I agree that both are soft left, and frankly they aren't the target. The reality is that Rayner - a proud Blairite remember, just listen to her passionate description of how His government transformed her life chances - is the remaining totem of the hard left.
She seems to enjoy that role as she indulges in mouth-foaming rants about Tory scum which cause the Labour party considerable harm. That one speech alone was enough for Starmer to bin her off.
The makeup of the party is such that Starmer just can't do that. The membership is still further to the left than in the late 1990's, quite clearly, and she and Miliband link the left, the soft-left and Starmer. He antagonises them at his party's, and electoral prospect's, peril.
Naah. The people who do all the work are in the centre or the right of the party. So its no cost to activists. And the members elected Starmer on a huge majority so the job is his as long as he wants to keep it.
The voters - the people who matter - do not back hard left lunacy. Elections are always won from the centre ground.
No, I don't agree with that at all. Many of the current younger membership are on the left, without being on the old machine-politics hard left. The number of 60+ members of that generation is diminishing.
On a slightly tangential note I had a small bet with @rkrkrk that there would be no more legal restrictions this year, winnings to the site. If the administrators can put up the donate button I will make the donation since I have clearly lost.
Video has emerged of a group of men spitting at a bus full of Jewish teenagers in Oxford Street where the group were celebrating the first night of Chanukah.
I presume under twitter new rules this sort of thing will be banned, as the individuals spitting and hitting the bus with their shoes haven't given written consent to have their faces shown.
No. This is problem with getting your information from headlines and PB idiots. Here's the blogpost about the policy change. It clearly says there is a public interest "clause".
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Again its not about asylum numbers, its about the numbers coming via boats.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
As posted:
"As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away"
My main take away from PMQs was Rachel Reeves sad eyes as it seemed to dawn on her that no matter how well SKS did she'd be on the losing side next GE.
Might just have been up all night in front of spreadsheets trying to work out all the sneaky ways Rishi is building a huge tax take. 😆
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
"Cancel your big Christmas party and have a couple of small ones instead"
"Avoid 'making merry', don't hug your relatives"
Holy shit these people have gone completely power mad.
This is Sarah Pitt btw.
There was a piece in one of the sundays about how Whitty is very worried that if they do have to lock us all down and so on again this xmas, the public will just raise two fingers and ignore them.
He has said that he was misquoted. He was discussing a hypothetical, but said that he thought the public will follow new guidance. This BBC article covers what he said more accurately: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59434196
People will apply what they see as common sense, with a dollop of peer pressure-induced conformity. Just as they always have done. So they'll happily don masks in shops and on the tube, with a few exceptions, because it's not hard to do and seems reasonable. But they'll keep meeting family and friends socially over Christmas.
Let's face it there is also this amusing, completely unscientific but deep rooted belief among the general population that they are more likely to catch Covid off strangers than people they know well. Even though the opposite is largely true. A Covid version of children's stranger-danger. Even JRM seemed to buy it when justifying the Tory MPs mixing maskless.
Starmer is clearly not a bad politician. To go from 25 points behind to tied is impressive.
Whether he’s a great politician, only time will tell.
12 years into a a Tory Government and being tied midterm in the polls is impressive?
Labour should be 10-15 clear at this stage
That is grade A bollox. We are just 2 years after a landslide Con election victory.
That’s very rudely put Kinny. That Conservatives can’t see or acknowledge how much more of a threat libdems and Labour will be to them next time and how much less potent Boris and his promises will be next time is actually very funny.
Yes, I'm not one to underestimate the Magnificent but I'm slowly growing in confidence that it will be close.
A double horsey attack on the right flank looks quite powerful...
Nah. Those pawns on e4/e5 are holding both sides positions together and neither can afford to do much. I reckon black will put a bit of pressure on with Bb7 but there's no big attack coming.
On a slightly tangential note I had a small bet with @rkrkrk that there would be no more legal restrictions this year, winnings to the site. If the administrators can put up the donate button I will make the donation since I have clearly lost.
Touch unlucky there. Omicron has picked your pocket.
Looks like SAGE is on same page as me. There's so much riding on knowledge we won't have for 2 weeks. So we should act now as if it will be bad and relax if it isn't.
If we followed her advice we still be in the same lockdown that started last Christmas....
On 99% of reports, this variant is a severe cold. It's been around for weeks. You ought to read more widely. It's clearly not an emergency so stop complying with illegal measures, as Lord Sumption said
One can't get much more senior than a former Supreme Court Justice.
That's wasn't me saying that, it was a direct quote from the most lockdowny lockdowner among the zero covid lot. The equivalent of somebody who thinks we should ban all cars because no speed limit is too low to stop deaths on the road and we must eliminate all of them.
I think it looked like it was your comment. I had to read it twice to see you were quoting her.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
Exactly right – I have said before that Labour has too be very careful not to side with the joyless and judgmental.
They are the joyless and judgemental
They (as in the Labour Party) really are not. They love a knees-up. But the leadership, and the line, can certainly present as if they are.
Joyless and judgemental! - What tosh.
We're a broad church and our services are destination events.
As usual the problem is the Labour-supporting new model army with their blue hearts all over Twitter. Most are simply supporters (or more specifically anti-Tories) but they poison the brand. Like the anti-woke crusader types do for the Tory brand.
Sad to say a few of the yellow-diamond Twitter Lib Dems have succumbed to the temperance movement too.
I've just caught up with PMQs. I note that JRM was wearing a mask; he has resolutely refused to do so previously. Does this mean that the Tory benches have suddenly become less "convivial and fraternal", as per his explanation a month ago for why he had no need to wear a mask in the HoC?
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
This is the problem with scientists, they don't necessarily think through the end consequences of what they propose, only the headlines. Less socialising means less cases, for sure and that's what she wants. Yet less socialising means businesses struggling, unemployment going up and just a general bit of misery. Those are consequences of what she said that simply won't even have entered the equation for her which will have been, how can we make cases go down.
It's also something the government needs to clamp down on, there's an agreed position and all advisors sing from the same hymn sheet. If they disagree then make the case to the politicians and get the agreed position changed.
One of the reasons I think she has gone rogue is because Javid is a lot tougher than Hancock and probably is less inclined to social measures like lockdowns and distancing.
A double horsey attack on the right flank looks quite powerful...
Nah. Those pawns on e4/e5 are holding both sides positions together and neither can afford to do much. I reckon black will put a bit of pressure on with Bb7 but there's no big attack coming.
But what do I know...
Not a lot apparently-
"4m ago 13:33 Nepomniachtchi plays 18. Ng3 after three minutes. Carlsen answers with 18. ... Ng6. The challenger takes two more minutes before getting his dark-squared bishop into the mix with 19. Be3. White enjoys a slight positional edge with black’s light-squared bishop in the weeds."
Starmer is clearly not a bad politician. To go from 25 points behind to tied is impressive.
Whether he’s a great politician, only time will tell.
12 years into a a Tory Government and being tied midterm in the polls is impressive?
Labour should be 10-15 clear at this stage
That is grade A bollox. We are just 2 years after a landslide Con election victory.
That’s very rudely put Kinny. That Conservatives can’t see or acknowledge how much more of a threat libdems and Labour will be to them next time and how much less potent Boris and his promises will be next time is actually very funny.
Yes, I'm not one to underestimate the Magnificent but I'm slowly growing in confidence that it will be close.
It’s a change of government to libdems and Labour with SNP ensuring budget and confidence. This is turning into a fag end government now.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Again its not about asylum numbers, its about the numbers coming via boats.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
As posted:
"As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away"
Thank you. That's very different to the data you shared a moment ago.
That data includes people who arrived from 2011. The current policy that halted the boats started a couple of years later so the figures are probably distorted by that.
Your source says 37k have arrived since 2011 and that matches this data from the Refugee Council of Australia - note the annual split of that 37k.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Again its not about asylum numbers, its about the numbers coming via boats.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
As posted:
"As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away"
Thank you. That's very different to the data you shared a moment ago.
That data includes people who arrived from 2011. The current policy that halted the boats started a couple of years later so the figures are probably distorted by that.
Your source says 37k have arrived since 2011 and that matches this data from the Refugee Council of Australia - note the annual split of that 37k.
Just a note to say that boat arrivals aren't the same as attempted crossings. Turning a boat back isn't the same as preventing an attempt. This is tangential to the immediate discussion but relevant to the earlier one with me.
I think the Jenny Harries stuff is a complete red herring. If people are beginning to think about reviewing arrangements over the next month or so, it's nothing to do with what Harries (who hardly anybody has heard of) has said.
What makes people anxious is that after a prolonged period of quiescence on the Covid front we have had a week of serious pronouncements, and a slight rule change, from the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister. Both Javid and Johnson have put their 'this is serious' faces on. Javid has sounded quite rattled. Press conferences have been revived again - a sure sign of concern.
I've just caught up with PMQs. I note that JRM was wearing a mask; he has resolutely refused to do so previously. Does this mean that the Tory benches have suddenly become less "convivial and fraternal", as per his explanation a month ago for why he had no need to wear a mask in the HoC?
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Again its not about asylum numbers, its about the numbers coming via boats.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
As posted:
"As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away"
Thank you. That's very different to the data you shared a moment ago.
That data includes people who arrived from 2011. The current policy that halted the boats started a couple of years later so the figures are probably distorted by that.
Your source says 37k have arrived since 2011 and that matches this data from the Refugee Council of Australia - note the annual split of that 37k.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
From refugee Council of Australia:
That data is cumulative since eight years ago and doesn't come close to "tens of thousands".
These are the ones that actually were detained overseas. Many more never were, generally on medical or family grounds, and were kept in Australia.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
Again its not about asylum numbers, its about the numbers coming via boats.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
As posted:
"As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away"
Thank you. That's very different to the data you shared a moment ago.
That data includes people who arrived from 2011. The current policy that halted the boats started a couple of years later so the figures are probably distorted by that.
Your source says 37k have arrived since 2011 and that matches this data from the Refugee Council of Australia - note the annual split of that 37k.
Just a note to say that boat arrivals aren't the same as attempted crossings. Turning a boat back isn't the same as preventing an attempt. This is tangential to the immediate discussion but relevant to the earlier one with me.
Indeed but the figures are there. Once people realised that an attempted crossing couldn't work, the attempts stopped almost overnight. People aren't attempting the crossing anymore because there's no gain from attempting it.
A double horsey attack on the right flank looks quite powerful...
Nah. Those pawns on e4/e5 are holding both sides positions together and neither can afford to do much. I reckon black will put a bit of pressure on with Bb7 but there's no big attack coming.
But what do I know...
Not a lot apparently-
"4m ago 13:33 Nepomniachtchi plays 18. Ng3 after three minutes. Carlsen answers with 18. ... Ng6. The challenger takes two more minutes before getting his dark-squared bishop into the mix with 19. Be3. White enjoys a slight positional edge with black’s light-squared bishop in the weeds."
I've just caught up with PMQs. I note that JRM was wearing a mask; he has resolutely refused to do so previously. Does this mean that the Tory benches have suddenly become less "convivial and fraternal", as per his explanation a month ago for why he had no need to wear a mask in the HoC?
Comments
The voters - the people who matter - do not back hard left lunacy. Elections are always won from the centre ground.
Caveat that if the Tories are behind by double digits in mid-2023 then running down the clock and hoping for a narrative-changing event will be all they have left.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-59489259
We also have seen this consistently when we have had hospitality shut down / open up. One last big night out, everywhere rammed, before they close, then the same when they open.
Nothing against pubs, just saying many people don't seem to go for the happy medium during this pandemic. Its an all or nothing.
I mean the virus, by attacking the unvaccinated, is disproportionally wiping out those who take this environmentalist stance leaving a higher proportion of non-environmentalists still standing.
Therefore, DA should get vaccinated for the good of the planet.
Whether he’s a great politician, only time will tell.
They (as in the Labour Party) really are not. They love a knees-up. But the leadership, and the line, can certainly present as if they are.
Labour should be 10-15 clear at this stage
https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1465969113822601217?s=20
If we followed her advice we still be in the same lockdown that started last Christmas....
In contrast, Labour dropped their candidate who stood at the last three Westminster elections - seemingly not without a measure of ill-will. And Labour are busy fighting things out among themselves even at the highest level of the party, as today's news stories show.
The results of the 2019 general election are now ancient history. And I hear tell that a lot of people who voted Conservative then did so only because they were afraid of a Corbyn government. This is no longer the case.
https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1466022171143245832?s=20
I presume under twitter new rules this sort of thing will be banned, as the individuals spitting and hitting the bus with their shoes haven't given written consent to have their faces shown.
Per capita, Australian asylum numbers are not very different to ours.
A year or so ago, Papworth Hospital near me was shut, and moved next to the site of the Addenbrookes Hospital. This was, IMO, a bad move. But that is two hospitals on essentially one site; and depending how you define the Rosie Maternity Hospital, more than two. But Addenbrookes and Rosie are run by the same trust; Papworth is independent.
So are two hospitals run on the same site (e.g. Addenbrookes and Rosie) by the same trust independent hospitals? They are treated as such (friends say they had their children at 'Rosie', not 'Addenrbookes').
This has been made worse by hospital centralisation over the last thirty or forty years.
From: https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/bridging-visas
https://truthunmuted.org/top-uk-judge-calls-for-civil-disobedience/
One can't get much more senior than a former Supreme Court Justice.
As for "locking on" and similar, that is a declaration by an individual or group of individuals that their personal opinions are so important that it is OK to prevent members of society, whether people or organisations, going about their lawful business.
Of course it's correct that such behaviour should have a penalty, and I hope that those who choose to cause disruption are held personally responsible for the damage and costs they choose to impose on others. They of course have the option of holding a demonstration that does not wreck others' lives; they choose not too and there should be consequences.
ER/IB are one stage worse in that they are willing to cause serious harm to vulnerable individuals by blocking access to hospitals etc. I would term that sociopathic, as someone who would be dead now except for a rapid life-saving journey to A&E some years ago - of exactly the type being blocked by IB.
On a more general front, Monbiot is completely out of his tree at present.
He broadcast films of himself weeping for the poor ickle narcissists of IB, and seems not to give a toss for the lives or welfare of their victims. He needs to get back to planet earth.
We're a broad church and our services are destination events.
Australian boat numbers collapsed to near-zero following their offshore processing. Asylum through other means continued and there's nothing wrong with that, indeed its a good thing.
You claimed tens of thousands from boats were in Australia on BVE visas. Do you have any figures to support that, or would you like to withdraw that comment?
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-information-policy-update
"As at 30 June 2020, 12,450 asylum seekers who arrived by boat remained in the community (10,245 with a current BVE and 2,205 awaiting grant of a further BVE). The remaining 24,576 asylum seekers who were granted BVEs were granted a substantive visa, departed Australia, returned to immigration detention or passed away"
From https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/bridging-visas#:~:text=health care system).-,Bridging Visa E (BVE),to reside in the community.
Let's face it there is also this amusing, completely unscientific but deep rooted belief among the general population that they are more likely to catch Covid off strangers than people they know well. Even though the opposite is largely true. A Covid version of children's stranger-danger. Even JRM seemed to buy it when justifying the Tory MPs mixing maskless.
But what do I know...
Sad to say a few of the yellow-diamond Twitter Lib Dems have succumbed to the temperance movement too.
Mandatory vaccines are repugnant.
But a surcharge for people who don’t / won’t get vaccinated is actually OK given the strain on health services.
I note that JRM was wearing a mask; he has resolutely refused to do so previously.
Does this mean that the Tory benches have suddenly become less "convivial and fraternal", as per his explanation a month ago for why he had no need to wear a mask in the HoC?
"4m ago
13:33
Nepomniachtchi plays 18. Ng3 after three minutes. Carlsen answers with 18. ... Ng6. The challenger takes two more minutes before getting his dark-squared bishop into the mix with 19. Be3. White enjoys a slight positional edge with black’s light-squared bishop in the weeds."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2021/dec/01/world-chess-championship-game-5-live-magnus-carlsen-v-ian-nepomniachtchi?filterKeyEvents=false#liveblog-content
It's Jim or James btw - it's from a PKD book.
That data includes people who arrived from 2011. The current policy that halted the boats started a couple of years later so the figures are probably distorted by that.
Your source says 37k have arrived since 2011 and that matches this data from the Refugee Council of Australia - note the annual split of that 37k.
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-boats-statistics/
What makes people anxious is that after a prolonged period of quiescence on the Covid front we have had a week of serious pronouncements, and a slight rule change, from the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister. Both Javid and Johnson have put their 'this is serious' faces on. Javid has sounded quite rattled. Press conferences have been revived again - a sure sign of concern.
That's what's raised anxiety. Not Harries.
In addition as I showed, of those offshored, a significant number got BVE or other Australian visas.
Black is slightly worse and needs to get his white bishop involved somehow but without losing control of f5.
It might be hard for either side to do anything without weakening their own defensive position.
We shall see.