Voters continue to socially distance from BoJo & the Tories – politicalbetting.com
New Scottish Westminster poll, Opinium 15 – 22 Dec (changes vs 3 – 8 Sep):SNP ~ 48% (-3)Lab ~ 22% (+5)Con ~ 17% (-4)LD ~ 7% (+2)Others 6%, tables not yet available for breakdown. pic.twitter.com/NzEhKH4agP
Comments
-
Zuerst.
How earth did TSE miss this.
Drunk and Rumpoled?0 -
Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.1
-
There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.1 -
Minus 3pc for SNP is a good start0
-
It's an interesting poll. Seems to suggest a complete collapse in Tory fortunes outside of their heartlands such as the Borders and Aberdeenshire but SNP still utterly dominant.
Not bad for Labour in comparison to all their recent Westminster polling but they would be lucky to gain more than 2/3 seats based only on anti SNP tactical voting.0 -
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
1 -
Nobody thinks it has gone away.CorrectHorseBattery said:There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.
What they do think is that it is not going away, and life must go on.
What happens if you introduce a cold to someone who has never had one at age 80? I'm not so sure you wouldn't get a similar result to Covid-19. The problem is that this virus is novel more than anything else.4 -
Those are three very different types of viruses you are comparing there. They have different modes of replication, different rates of mutation, and different modes of proofreading.CorrectHorseBattery said:There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.0 -
So let's get this straight then in May of this year voters in Brexit heartlands such as Hartlepool voted for the Tories and were ringing into radio shows saying they could not vote for a Labour lead party by Keir Starmer due to his second referendum stance and taking the knee. Does anyone really think that leave voters in Hartlepool and Bassetlaw are queuing up to elect the same party as David Lamey, Keir Starmer - Alistair Campbell? Surely this MRP projection giving Labour a 26 majority is midterm dissatisfaction? I am not denying Boris is not in trouble but has their really been a massive swing to Labour - I'm not convinced by that. Can Labour really overturn a 16,000 majority in seats like Bassetlaw these days??0
-
Your assumptions are that most voters in the Red Wall still care about Brexit.xxxxx5 said:So let's get this straight then in May of this year voters in Brexit heartlands such as Hartlepool voted for the Tories and were ringing into radio shows saying they could not vote for a Labour lead party by Keir Starmer due to his second referendum stance and taking the knee. Does anyone really think that leave voters in Hartlepool and Bassetlaw are queuing up to elect the same party as David Lamey, Keir Starmer - Alistair Campbell? Surely this MRP projection giving Labour a 26 majority is midterm dissatisfaction? I am not denying Boris is not in trouble but has their really been a massive swing to Labour - I'm not convinced by that. Can Labour really overturn a 16,000 majority in seats like Bassetlaw these days??
These same voters happily voted for Keir Starmer, David Lammy and Alastair Campbell in various ways between 1997 and 2019, I think you overstate the impact of these people to be honest2 -
Arsenal fans at Carrow Road: “Boris, you’re a ****, you’re a ****, Boris you’re a ***.”
Followed by:
“You can shove your ****ing lockdown up your arse.”3 -
One issue is how far the Tories have gone in kneeing their farming and fishing supporters in the goolies with things like free trade in food and the fisheries problems, and how far those issues can be remedied by the relevant time. That would affect areas such as Aberdeenshire, Banff and Buchan - the Borders rather less so I would think outside the coastal fringe.Gary_Burton said:It's an interesting poll. Seems to suggest a complete collapse in Tory fortunes outside of their heartlands such as the Borders and Aberdeenshire but SNP still utterly dominant.
Not bad for Labour in comparison to all their recent Westminster polling but they would be lucky to gain more than 2/3 seats based only on anti SNP tactical voting.0 -
Actually both May in 2017 and Major in 1992 comfortably won most seats in England regardless of what happened in Scotland.
I would argue the latest UK wide polls are not good at all for the SNP. For if Labour win most seats or a majority then Starmer could completely ignore the SNP demands for an indyref2 exactly as Boris has done. All Sir Keir would do is appoint Gordon Brown to run a commission on a more Federal UK.
If Tory MPs fear losing the next general election and remove Boris and he is replaced with Sunak, then Sunak also polls much better in Scotland than Boris does.
So Sturgeon and the SNP must surely therefore be hoping for something of a Boris revival. For if Boris leads the Tories into the next general election and wins most seats but not a majority then Sturgeon and Blackford have Starmer where they want him. No indyref2, no Starmer premiership.
The SNP need 2022 to be a better year for Boris as much as Tories do1 -
It seems some people want to live in abject terror of covid even after being fully vaccinated and continually demand more vaccinations at, very likely, ever shorter intervals.Flatlander said:
Nobody thinks it has gone away.CorrectHorseBattery said:There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.
What they do think is that it is not going away, and life must go on.
What happens if you introduce a cold to someone who has never had one at age 80? I'm not so sure you wouldn't get a similar result to Covid-19. The problem is that this virus is novel more than anything else.
What vaccination gives us is the ability to live normal lives with the risk of covid reduced to acceptable levels.
And with the knowledge that if covid infection does happen that it will reduce the risk from further infections even more.1 -
You're inventing a straw man.another_richard said:
It seems some people want to live in abject terror of covid even after being fully vaccinated and continually demand more vaccinations at, very likely, ever shorter intervals.Flatlander said:
Nobody thinks it has gone away.CorrectHorseBattery said:There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.
What they do think is that it is not going away, and life must go on.
What happens if you introduce a cold to someone who has never had one at age 80? I'm not so sure you wouldn't get a similar result to Covid-19. The problem is that this virus is novel more than anything else.
What vaccination gives us is the ability to live normal lives with the risk of covid reduced to acceptable levels.
And with the knowledge that if covid infection does happen that it will reduce the risk from further infections even more.
I don't want a lockdown, I want to avoid one wherever possible. So we need to ensure we do everything we can to prevent such an outcome. Where we disagree is to whether it's an option.0 -
Unionist +3
SNP Types -3
Long may this trend continue.0 -
If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats1
-
I think an instance of you arguing polls were good for the SNP would be needed to to make a judgment on the value of this observation.HYUFD said:Actually both May in 2017 and Major in 1992 comfortably won most seats in England regardless of what happened in Scotland.
I would actually argue the latest UK wide polls are not good at all for the SNP. For if Labour win most seats or a majority then Starmer could completely ignore the SNP demands for an indyref2 exactly as Boris has done. All Sir Keir would do is appoint Gordon Brown to run a commission on a more Federal UK.
If Tory MPs fear losing the next general election and remove Boris and replace him with Sunak, then Subak also polls much better in Scotland than Boris does.
So Sturgeon and the SNP must surely therefore be hoping for something of a Boris revival. For if Boris leads the Tories into the next general election and wins most seats but not a majority then Sturgeon and Blackford have Starmer where they want him. No indyref2, no Starmer premiership.
The SNP need 2022 to be a better year for Boris as much as Tories do0 -
'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...0 -
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.0 -
'War on woke' arguably doesn't have the same traction as 'Get Brexit Done' or preventing Corbyn from being PM.xxxxx5 said:So let's get this straight then in May of this year voters in Brexit heartlands such as Hartlepool voted for the Tories and were ringing into radio shows saying they could not vote for a Labour lead party by Keir Starmer due to his second referendum stance and taking the knee. Does anyone really think that leave voters in Hartlepool and Bassetlaw are queuing up to elect the same party as David Lamey, Keir Starmer - Alistair Campbell? Surely this MRP projection giving Labour a 26 majority is midterm dissatisfaction? I am not denying Boris is not in trouble but has their really been a massive swing to Labour - I'm not convinced by that. Can Labour really overturn a 16,000 majority in seats like Bassetlaw these days??
0 -
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.0 -
Well, yes but the point I was making is that of there were no Tory MPs in Scotland in 1992 there would presumably have been no MPs of any sort from there...so the comparison* doesn't altogether work.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
*autocorrect bizarrely made this 'the do O'Mara.' Genuine WTAF moment!0 -
You are assuming that it is inevitable that the union will break up. Whilst I don't have particularly strong feelings on the issue, I don't think it is.Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
My understanding was that, on the subject of devolution in 1997, the Civil service originally advised of a likelihood of 'disagreements between the centre and the devolved entities, with the latter seeking to push the boundaries of their competence'. Having these parliaments based on national boundaries with limited decision making functions certainly seems to weaken the overall political coherance of the UK. The SNP have certainly played on this, to promote the cause of independence. It is hard to envisage how the 2014 referendum would have come about, without the preceding decade of devolved government.
0 -
Very sad to hear the news about Janice Long. One of my favourite DJs and Top of the Pops presenters. Sister of Keith Chegwin.4
-
It’s not on TV, I’m in the away end. I’m not joining in either with those chants or the disgraceful chants about incest in Norfolk.JBriskin3 said:
Are the commentators offering a "Let's go Brandon" style alternative?tlg86 said:Arsenal fans at Carrow Road: “Boris, you’re a ****, you’re a ****, Boris you’re a ***.”
Followed by:
“You can shove your ****ing lockdown up your arse.”0 -
I think the SCONS can hold the Border seats if they pretty much focused their resources there.Carnyx said:
One issue is how far the Tories have gone in kneeing their farming and fishing supporters in the goolies with things like free trade in food and the fisheries problems, and how far those issues can be remedied by the relevant time. That would affect areas such as Aberdeenshire, Banff and Buchan - the Borders rather less so I would think outside the coastal fringe.Gary_Burton said:It's an interesting poll. Seems to suggest a complete collapse in Tory fortunes outside of their heartlands such as the Borders and Aberdeenshire but SNP still utterly dominant.
Not bad for Labour in comparison to all their recent Westminster polling but they would be lucky to gain more than 2/3 seats based only on anti SNP tactical voting.
I think they're stuffed in the NE, though.0 -
#StandFreetlg86 said:
It’s not on TV, I’m in the away end. I’m not joining in either with those chants or the disgraceful chants about incest in Norfolk.JBriskin3 said:
Are the commentators offering a "Let's go Brandon" style alternative?tlg86 said:Arsenal fans at Carrow Road: “Boris, you’re a ****, you’re a ****, Boris you’re a ***.”
Followed by:
“You can shove your ****ing lockdown up your arse.”0 -
Of course Boris won more Scottish Tory MPs than any Tory leader in the last 30 years after Major and May.JBriskin3 said:
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
Cameron, Hague, IDS and Howard were more toxic in Scotland than Boris was. Boris still got 25% of the Scottish vote and 6 Scottish Tory MPs in 20191 -
"Acceptable" and "normal" are both very individual things, and people will make different judgments on the trade-off - it's unhelpful to portray it as "abject terror". I'd rather avoid close contact for a few more months because my lifestyle works reasonably well as it is. Someone younger (hence less liable to be seriously affected) and with a lively social life will make a different decision. Neither is wrong in itself.another_richard said:
It seems some people want to live in abject terror of covid even after being fully vaccinated and continually demand more vaccinations at, very likely, ever shorter intervals.Flatlander said:
Nobody thinks it has gone away.CorrectHorseBattery said:There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.
What they do think is that it is not going away, and life must go on.
What happens if you introduce a cold to someone who has never had one at age 80? I'm not so sure you wouldn't get a similar result to Covid-19. The problem is that this virus is novel more than anything else.
What vaccination gives us is the ability to live normal lives with the risk of covid reduced to acceptable levels.
And with the knowledge that if covid infection does happen that it will reduce the risk from further infections even more.
The problem for the Government is if they judge that the explosion of cases is going to lead to severe shortages of manpower at the same time as hospitalisations rise. I don't think it's an easy decision and I won't criticise them if they do or don't lock down further. But I'd expect them to make up their minds so we know where we are, and to support industries badly affected by whatever they decide.1 -
I suppose said voters might just stay at home rather than go back to the SNP (Especially not Sturgeon's SNP) Most of those voters who voted brexit before probably still want brexit, they are just unhappy with the way it is being carried out.Carnyx said:
One issue is how far the Tories have gone in kneeing their farming and fishing supporters in the goolies with things like free trade in food and the fisheries problems, and how far those issues can be remedied by the relevant time. That would affect areas such as Aberdeenshire, Banff and Buchan - the Borders rather less so I would think outside the coastal fringe.Gary_Burton said:It's an interesting poll. Seems to suggest a complete collapse in Tory fortunes outside of their heartlands such as the Borders and Aberdeenshire but SNP still utterly dominant.
Not bad for Labour in comparison to all their recent Westminster polling but they would be lucky to gain more than 2/3 seats based only on anti SNP tactical voting.1 -
The only question IMO is whether Johnson goes at the start of the year or after the local elections in May.1
-
Hague, Howard and Cameron all won one seat in Scotland. But given the state the party was in at the time that's not surprising.HYUFD said:
Of course Boris won more Scottish Tory MPs than any Tory leader in the last 30 years after Major and May.JBriskin3 said:
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
Cameron, Hague, IDS and Howard were more toxic in Scotland than Boris was. Boris still got 25% of the Scottish vote and 6 Scottish Tory MPs in 2019
To put it in context, Johnson is the only Tory leader ever to win an overall majority without gaining a double figure spread of seats in Scotland0 -
Cameron in 2015 won an overall majority with one seat in Scotland. Mind you, this was prior to SCONS managing to position themselves as the 'party of the union'.ydoethur said:
Hague, Howard and Cameron all won one seat in Scotland. But given the state the party was in at the time that's not surprising.HYUFD said:
Of course Boris won more Scottish Tory MPs than any Tory leader in the last 30 years after Major and May.JBriskin3 said:
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
Cameron, Hague, IDS and Howard were more toxic in Scotland than Boris was. Boris still got 25% of the Scottish vote and 6 Scottish Tory MPs in 2019
To put it in context, Johnson is the only Tory leader ever to win an overall majority without gaining a double figure spread of seats in Scotland2 -
Anyone know when the daily COVID data updates will resume? Tomorrow?
0 -
Yes. Should be around 4pm tomorrow.TimT said:Anyone know when the daily COVID data updates will resume? Tomorrow?
0 -
Im not convinced your right on this - both Campbell and Lammy to a certain degree have made comments about those who voted for Brexit especially Campbell claiming those voters seemed too stupid to know what they were voting for. If there is anything to save the Tories in 2024 it would be Campbell overegging the Starmer led Labour Party to try and reverse Brexit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Your assumptions are that most voters in the Red Wall still care about Brexit.xxxxx5 said:So let's get this straight then in May of this year voters in Brexit heartlands such as Hartlepool voted for the Tories and were ringing into radio shows saying they could not vote for a Labour lead party by Keir Starmer due to his second referendum stance and taking the knee. Does anyone really think that leave voters in Hartlepool and Bassetlaw are queuing up to elect the same party as David Lamey, Keir Starmer - Alistair Campbell? Surely this MRP projection giving Labour a 26 majority is midterm dissatisfaction? I am not denying Boris is not in trouble but has their really been a massive swing to Labour - I'm not convinced by that. Can Labour really overturn a 16,000 majority in seats like Bassetlaw these days??
These same voters happily voted for Keir Starmer, David Lammy and Alastair Campbell in various ways between 1997 and 2019, I think you overstate the impact of these people to be honest0 -
On Scotland, I just want the Tories to lose seats. If that means an SNP clean sweep, that's fine by me.1
-
D'oh moment on my part. Should have thought of that...RandallFlagg said:
Cameron in 2015 won an overall majority with one seat in Scotland. Mind you, this was prior to SCONS managing to position themselves as the 'party of the union'.ydoethur said:
Hague, Howard and Cameron all won one seat in Scotland. But given the state the party was in at the time that's not surprising.HYUFD said:
Of course Boris won more Scottish Tory MPs than any Tory leader in the last 30 years after Major and May.JBriskin3 said:
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
Cameron, Hague, IDS and Howard were more toxic in Scotland than Boris was. Boris still got 25% of the Scottish vote and 6 Scottish Tory MPs in 2019
To put it in context, Johnson is the only Tory leader ever to win an overall majority without gaining a double figure spread of seats in Scotland0 -
This logic is fine for an English person.SandyRentool said:On Scotland, I just want the Tories to lose seats. If that means an SNP clean sweep, that's fine by me.
Compare and contrast with the kool-aid overdose that is @Farooq0 -
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
0 -
Oh you sweet summer childCharles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
0 -
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
Just another case of SNP Types being wrong I guess. They'll get their indyref2 under StarmerNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
Briskin talks from his posteriorNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
There will be no referendum while Sturgeon is there.JBriskin3 said:
Just another case of SNP Types being wrong I guess. They'll get their indyref2 under StarmerNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
I wish that were true. I'd say it's a 50pc chance of a Lab/SNP coaltion with an inevitable indyref2 to go with it.malcolmg said:
There will be no referendum while Sturgeon is there.JBriskin3 said:
Just another case of SNP Types being wrong I guess. They'll get their indyref2 under StarmerNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
But not for all four nations, will take until Wednesday I think for everyone to catch up.londonpubman said:
Yes. Should be around 4pm tomorrow.TimT said:Anyone know when the daily COVID data updates will resume? Tomorrow?
0 -
I don't think Starmer is an idiot: the Labour Party's EU policy will be "we respect the EU referendum, but feel that a more positive relationship with our European partners would be in British interests."xxxxx5 said:So let's get this straight then in May of this year voters in Brexit heartlands such as Hartlepool voted for the Tories and were ringing into radio shows saying they could not vote for a Labour lead party by Keir Starmer due to his second referendum stance and taking the knee. Does anyone really think that leave voters in Hartlepool and Bassetlaw are queuing up to elect the same party as David Lamey, Keir Starmer - Alistair Campbell? Surely this MRP projection giving Labour a 26 majority is midterm dissatisfaction? I am not denying Boris is not in trouble but has their really been a massive swing to Labour - I'm not convinced by that. Can Labour really overturn a 16,000 majority in seats like Bassetlaw these days??
Will that resonate? It depends. But Starmer is not going to throw away a shot at Number Ten by positioning himself far the to the side of the Conservative Party. Frankly, all be needs to do is promise slightly closer relations than them.2 -
she will have an excuse for sure if still there and same will apply if Macbeth replaces herJBriskin3 said:
I wish that were true. I'd say it's a 50pc chance of a Lab/SNP coaltion with an inevitable indyref2 to go with it.malcolmg said:
There will be no referendum while Sturgeon is there.JBriskin3 said:
Just another case of SNP Types being wrong I guess. They'll get their indyref2 under StarmerNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
0 -
From previous thread: Wikipedia on typhoid risks: "The risk of death may be as high as 20% without treatment.[6] With treatment, it is between 1 and 4%."
I believe that several deaths were attributed to Typhoid Mary, and that she is suspected in others. Cooking kills the bacteria, but one of her specialties was peach ice cream.
Authorities first tried to persuade her to do safer jobs, but, perhaps because she could earn more as a cook, she refused, so finally they confined her.0 -
We are not talking about on-fire 2019 Bozza are we? We are talking pants-on-fire, crashed and burned 2022 Bozza.HYUFD said:
Of course Boris won more Scottish Tory MPs than any Tory leader in the last 30 years after Major and May.JBriskin3 said:
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
Cameron, Hague, IDS and Howard were more toxic in Scotland than Boris was. Boris still got 25% of the Scottish vote and 6 Scottish Tory MPs in 20190 -
Sounds like you've conceded Malkymalcolmg said:
she will have an excuse for sure if still there and same will apply if Macbeth replaces herJBriskin3 said:
I wish that were true. I'd say it's a 50pc chance of a Lab/SNP coaltion with an inevitable indyref2 to go with it.malcolmg said:
There will be no referendum while Sturgeon is there.JBriskin3 said:
Just another case of SNP Types being wrong I guess. They'll get their indyref2 under StarmerNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
Long Live The Union!0 -
Though things work out best for them if they don't lock down (economically and, increasingly, electorally negative) but continue to hint that they might (thereby imposing something of a dampener on social interaction).NickPalmer said:
"Acceptable" and "normal" are both very individual things, and people will make different judgments on the trade-off - it's unhelpful to portray it as "abject terror". I'd rather avoid close contact for a few more months because my lifestyle works reasonably well as it is. Someone younger (hence less liable to be seriously affected) and with a lively social life will make a different decision. Neither is wrong in itself.another_richard said:
It seems some people want to live in abject terror of covid even after being fully vaccinated and continually demand more vaccinations at, very likely, ever shorter intervals.Flatlander said:
Nobody thinks it has gone away.CorrectHorseBattery said:There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking here.
Omicron is probably a little bit less impacting on the population than the original strain but the idea it's mutated to be the same level as a cold is ridiculous and wrong.
We have not yet seen COVID genuinely mutate to be on the same level as a cold. Now that may still happen but it doesn't mean it will, smallpox hasn't mutated to be less deadly. HIV hasn't either.
So to me, what we need to do is ensure immunity in the population remains high, such that the NHS and hospitals are not overwhelmed. And if we can prevent people dying needlessly we also should.
That means putting into plans now as to how we deal with that over the next months/years. If that means more boosters, then more boosters. If it means something else, then that.
My biggest concern is right now the headlines and the public attitude will go to "it's all gone away now" and the Government will probably go there too. This is the wrong approach.
What they do think is that it is not going away, and life must go on.
What happens if you introduce a cold to someone who has never had one at age 80? I'm not so sure you wouldn't get a similar result to Covid-19. The problem is that this virus is novel more than anything else.
What vaccination gives us is the ability to live normal lives with the risk of covid reduced to acceptable levels.
And with the knowledge that if covid infection does happen that it will reduce the risk from further infections even more.
The problem for the Government is if they judge that the explosion of cases is going to lead to severe shortages of manpower at the same time as hospitalisations rise. I don't think it's an easy decision and I won't criticise them if they do or don't lock down further. But I'd expect them to make up their minds so we know where we are, and to support industries badly affected by whatever they decide.0 -
When you add "after Major and May"...HYUFD said:
Of course Boris won more Scottish Tory MPs than any Tory leader in the last 30 years after Major and May.JBriskin3 said:
I understand that tory gain was Aberdeen South - where I now reside.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.ydoethur said:'in 1992 John Major doesn’t win a majority with Scottish Tories,'
Should that be 'without?'
In any case, that's rather misleading. Although the Tories won 11 seats in Scotland, which is indeed the difference between their majority and a hung Parliament, their opponents won 61 seats.
So without Scotland the score line would have been 325-254 and a majority of 71.
I think Major would have been pretty happy with that...
John Major is an utter Unionist, I once heard him speak at at event, you got the feeling the proudest result for him was the Tory gain in Scotland.
Put it this way, he'd rather lose a general election in which Scotland is a part of the Union rather than win a general election in which Scotland isn't part of the Union.
Cameron, Hague, IDS and Howard were more toxic in Scotland than Boris was. Boris still got 25% of the Scottish vote and 6 Scottish Tory MPs in 2019
"I came top in the maths exam, after John, James, Joe, Josie, Jane, Jacky and Julia!"1 -
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?0 -
You must be thinking of England where recent attempts to revalue had been cancelled.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
0 -
But she is being called out on it, by you here and those replying?CorrectHorseBattery said:Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?0 -
The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here0 -
I would like to apologise. Earlier I said this poll was 1 point off of Tory core vote level for a general election.
I am reminded that Ruth Davidson lead them to 14.9% in 2015 so actually it is 2 points off of their absolute base.0 -
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.0 -
Apparently France may be having a "circuit breaker" (god I hate that term) for the new year:
https://twitter.com/Mediavenir/status/1475146019188916230
I don't know how reliable that source is of course, but it doesn't seem implausible given their situation.
0 -
Especially as the rates review for England had just been cancelled - twice, acc. to Wiki. So if you had to pick on one of the four nations as a guinea pig then you wouldn't sensibly pick on Scotland rather than England, seeng as the Scots residents needed local taxation reform less than the English residents.rcs1000 said:
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.0 -
Who cares about the original strain? The important thing is how it compares to the previous prevalent strain, Delta.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here0 -
While it's been great to have a Scottish thread on boxing day - I've still booze and mince pies to make my way through.
Catch you all laters.0 -
They thought it would be popular. The Scottish ministers lobbied hard for it to be introduced in Scotland first.Carnyx said:
Especially as the rates review for England had just been cancelled - twice, acc. to Wiki. So if you had to pick on one of the four nations as a guinea pig then you wouldn't sensibly pick on Scotland rather than England, seeng as the Scots residents needed local taxation reform less than the English residents.rcs1000 said:
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.0 -
Because no ones watching it... Your point is right though.CorrectHorseBattery said:Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?2 -
The French case graphs are currently following the same trajectory as those in this country (with a lower case rate, but also with a lower rate of testing,) and they have twice as many Covid patients in hospital. We know the amount of pressure that the UK Government is under from many, perhaps most, of the scientists to impose harsh measures in England; I don't imagine it's any different for President Macron.Maffew said:Apparently France may be having a "circuit breaker" (god I hate that term) for the new year:
https://twitter.com/Mediavenir/status/1475146019188916230
I don't know how reliable that source is of course, but it doesn't seem implausible given their situation.0 -
'Scottish ministers' - that was before devolution, of course; George Younger was the relevant Secretary of State.Alistair said:
They thought it would be popular. The Scottish ministers lobbied hard for it to be introduced in Scotland first.Carnyx said:
Especially as the rates review for England had just been cancelled - twice, acc. to Wiki. So if you had to pick on one of the four nations as a guinea pig then you wouldn't sensibly pick on Scotland rather than England, seeng as the Scots residents needed local taxation reform less than the English residents.rcs1000 said:
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.0 -
It’s both. Omicron is up against a lot of immunity, but it also has been shown to be milder too. Several studies now (Scotland, Hong Kong etc), and reasons why it is milder (enhanced replication in the bronchial tissue, not in the lungs). You keep banging on that’s it’s not intrinsically milder, when it is.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here0 -
You sure? I thought Rifkind had replaced him by the time the decision to trial it in Scotland was made?Carnyx said:
'Scottish ministers' - that was before devolution, of course; George Younger was the relevant Secretary of State.Alistair said:
They thought it would be popular. The Scottish ministers lobbied hard for it to be introduced in Scotland first.Carnyx said:
Especially as the rates review for England had just been cancelled - twice, acc. to Wiki. So if you had to pick on one of the four nations as a guinea pig then you wouldn't sensibly pick on Scotland rather than England, seeng as the Scots residents needed local taxation reform less than the English residents.rcs1000 said:
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.
(Edit - and Younger was Scottish as well, anyway.)0 -
Well we should care since the original strain killed a lot of people and put us into a lockdown.RobD said:
Who cares about the original strain? The important thing is how it compares to the previous prevalent strain, Delta.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here
As for delta, the new variant is a bit less good at endangering the population than Delta but this will become a small issue as immunity wanes.0 -
I think that's right. Most people's first reaction would have been "who?".turbotubbs said:
Because no ones watching it... Your point is right though.CorrectHorseBattery said:Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?0 -
A bit less good? There's a significant reduction in the risk of hospitilisation and, as @turbotubbs points out, the way this variant attacks the lungs is different from both the original strain and Delta. As for immunity waning, it is not an on/off switch.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Well we should care since the original strain killed a lot of people and put us into a lockdown.RobD said:
Who cares about the original strain? The important thing is how it compares to the previous prevalent strain, Delta.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here
As for delta, the new variant is a bit less good at endangering the population than Delta but this will become a small issue as immunity wanes.0 -
It's possibly slightly milder than Delta but not significantly so, for us to want to not to boost/keep immunity high.turbotubbs said:
It’s both. Omicron is up against a lot of immunity, but it also has been shown to be milder too. Several studies now (Scotland, Hong Kong etc), and reasons why it is milder (enhanced replication in the bronchial tissue, not in the lungs). You keep banging on that’s it’s not intrinsically milder, when it is.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here
The studies conclude Omicron still is extremely dangerous to the population as immunity wanes, including and especially to the unvaccinated but also those unboosted.
We're not out of the woods yet, not by a long way0 -
Which part of immunity are you referring too? I keep saying this, and I will keep saying it, the immune system does not consist solely of neutralising antibodies. The waning you mention is that, not the overall protection against serious disease and death.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Well we should care since the original strain killed a lot of people and put us into a lockdown.RobD said:
Who cares about the original strain? The important thing is how it compares to the previous prevalent strain, Delta.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here
As for delta, the new variant is a bit less good at endangering the population than Delta but this will become a small issue as immunity wanes.0 -
Yes.Alistair said:
They thought it would be popular. The Scottish ministers lobbied hard for it to be introduced in Scotland first.Carnyx said:
Especially as the rates review for England had just been cancelled - twice, acc. to Wiki. So if you had to pick on one of the four nations as a guinea pig then you wouldn't sensibly pick on Scotland rather than England, seeng as the Scots residents needed local taxation reform less than the English residents.rcs1000 said:
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.
It wasn't so much the poll tax per se which did for Maggie.
But the continued insistence it would be popular revealing just how out of touch she'd become.0 -
I never claimed immunity is an on/off switch but there is concern over time that immunity wanes and we will be in a lot of trouble.
We see this in the studies that show two doses gives reduced protection.0 -
Do folk regularly get their hair done straight after a booster?CorrectHorseBattery said:Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?0 -
Its not 'anti vax conspiracy nonsense'. Its just an unverified, unreliable, third hand anecdote; and can be quickly dismissed as such.turbotubbs said:
Because no ones watching it... Your point is right though.CorrectHorseBattery said:Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?-1 -
After going into A&E, you mean.dixiedean said:
Do folk regularly get their hair done straight after a booster?CorrectHorseBattery said:Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
https://twitter.com/ThatAlexWoman/status/1474333849085784069
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?0 -
Want to back up your ‘possibly slightly milder’ claim? The studies show its more than that. SA shows a real world experiment. They expect omicron to be over very soon. It may be a bit sticky for a few weeks to come, but we are not in a crisis. Nothing like last year.CorrectHorseBattery said:
It's possibly slightly milder than Delta but not significantly so, for us to want to not to boost/keep immunity high.turbotubbs said:
It’s both. Omicron is up against a lot of immunity, but it also has been shown to be milder too. Several studies now (Scotland, Hong Kong etc), and reasons why it is milder (enhanced replication in the bronchial tissue, not in the lungs). You keep banging on that’s it’s not intrinsically milder, when it is.CorrectHorseBattery said:The assumption is that Omicron will mutate to become less dangerous to the population but that hasn't happened.
What we see is Omicron hitting a vaccinated population with - currently - high levels of immunity. We would see the same if the original Coronavirus strain had hit the same vaccinated population.
Wishful thinking by many here
The studies conclude Omicron still is extremely dangerous to the population as immunity wanes, including and especially to the unvaccinated but also those unboosted.
We're not out of the woods yet, not by a long way0 -
The Government needs to put into progress now, how we protect the population over the next several months. We are going to be in big trouble in the New Year and going into the spring if we do not put into place actions now.
Sitting around is not enough, "just let it run through" is also a silly response.0 -
Against infection yes. Better against serious disease. The concern is mostly journalists I think, and people on Twitter. Most immunologists are happy with how the vaccines are going.CorrectHorseBattery said:I never claimed immunity is an on/off switch but there is concern over time that immunity wanes and we will be in a lot of trouble.
We see this in the studies that show two doses gives reduced protection.0 -
The decision was made at Mr Y's behest and during his tenure, but yes, Mr R followed as S of S and had to cope with the results. I can't recall if he campaigned for the early intro in Scotland as a MP before that.ydoethur said:
You sure? I thought Rifkind had replaced him by the time the decision to trial it in Scotland was made?Carnyx said:
'Scottish ministers' - that was before devolution, of course; George Younger was the relevant Secretary of State.Alistair said:
They thought it would be popular. The Scottish ministers lobbied hard for it to be introduced in Scotland first.Carnyx said:
Especially as the rates review for England had just been cancelled - twice, acc. to Wiki. So if you had to pick on one of the four nations as a guinea pig then you wouldn't sensibly pick on Scotland rather than England, seeng as the Scots residents needed local taxation reform less than the English residents.rcs1000 said:
It was.Charles said:
I thought that was an artefact of when the rates review was due?Carnyx said:
One could however devise a counterfactual along the lines that devolution kept the Union together for an additional decade or so. The Poll Tax really changed people's minds: a tax imposed on Scotland but not England (and so contrary to the Union Treaty btw), when Scotland but not England had had a huge rates revaluation, and imposed by a government which had no legitimacy in Scotland in terms of the vote or seats. The contrast between that lack of legitimacy and the imposition of a separate tax on Scotland really woke people up and activated the things that led to the Constitutional Convention and the rise of the SNP.darkage said:Hard to avoid the conclusion that devolution was a big political error.
It was also still a foolish political mistake that made it look like Scotland was being singled out.
(Edit - and Younger was Scottish as well, anyway.)
George Younger was Scottish all right, or rather more precisely and relevantly MP for a Scottish constituency, but S of S by virtue of an administration for which the Scots did not vote, generally: which was a serious problem when the Scots got landed with this new tax.
0 -
Why are you so certain of this?CorrectHorseBattery said:The Government needs to put into progress now, how we protect the population over the next several months. We are going to be in big trouble in the New Year and going into the spring if we do not put into place actions now.
Sitting around is not enough, "just let it run through" is also a silly response.0 -
Happy with now but we likely need more boosters and the studies themselves note reduced immunity as a big concern.turbotubbs said:
Against infection yes. Better against serious disease. The concern is mostly journalists I think, and people on Twitter. Most immunologists are happy with how the vaccines are going.CorrectHorseBattery said:I never claimed immunity is an on/off switch but there is concern over time that immunity wanes and we will be in a lot of trouble.
We see this in the studies that show two doses gives reduced protection.
They definitely have not concluded there is nothing to worry about0 -
Is there evidence that the effectiveness against serious disease wanes at an appreciable rate?CorrectHorseBattery said:I never claimed immunity is an on/off switch but there is concern over time that immunity wanes and we will be in a lot of trouble.
We see this in the studies that show two doses gives reduced protection.0 -
Just had the text message from 'NHSBooster' telling me to 'GET BOOSTED NOW'. I'd just got into my dressing gown too...3
-
Well, perhaps we can SATISFY my SUGGESTION by DISSEMINATING LATIN to the GLOBE VIA our (PERFIDIOUS ALBION) NATIVE TONGUE.ydoethur said:
You forgot Arabia, Byzantium and Russia, although you were wrong to include Hibernia where it was a key language in scholarship from about the turn of the 7th century onwards.StuartDickson said:
“Universal”? Huh?Toms said:Why don't we go back to using Latin as the universal international language?
"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"
Latin wasn’t very big in Han China, the Kushan empire, Caledonia, Hibernia, Scandinavia, Magna Germania or most of the planet for that matter.0 -
Not at all, do you read posts, whilst Sturgeon is there. That will not be long her past will catch up with her soon and then hopefully a real Independence supporter will be in place for next Westminster election and will remove the need for a referendum by making the vote an independence vote.JBriskin3 said:
Sounds like you've conceded Malkymalcolmg said:
she will have an excuse for sure if still there and same will apply if Macbeth replaces herJBriskin3 said:
I wish that were true. I'd say it's a 50pc chance of a Lab/SNP coaltion with an inevitable indyref2 to go with it.malcolmg said:
There will be no referendum while Sturgeon is there.JBriskin3 said:
Just another case of SNP Types being wrong I guess. They'll get their indyref2 under StarmerNo_Offence_Alan said:
Funny, the SNP say Slab are uber-Unionists.JBriskin3 said:
Labour are super-soft on the Union.CorrectHorseBattery said:If Labour get a reputation as the pro-Union party which thanks to the Tories, they are at the moment perhaps, I'd expect them to make gains up to and around 2017 levels of seats
Long Live The Union!0 -
Tongue is Germanic, shoulda gone with language.Toms said:
Well, perhaps we can SATISFY my SUGGESTION by DISSEMINATING LATIN to the GLOBE VIA our (PERFIDIOUS ALBION) NATIVE TONGUE.ydoethur said:
You forgot Arabia, Byzantium and Russia, although you were wrong to include Hibernia where it was a key language in scholarship from about the turn of the 7th century onwards.StuartDickson said:
“Universal”? Huh?Toms said:Why don't we go back to using Latin as the universal international language?
"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"
Latin wasn’t very big in Han China, the Kushan empire, Caledonia, Hibernia, Scandinavia, Magna Germania or most of the planet for that matter.
0 -
Again, which immunity? It’s very complicated, hence journalists get hung up on neutralisation studies, not the full picture.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Happy with now but we likely need more boosters and the studies themselves note reduced immunity as a big concern.turbotubbs said:
Against infection yes. Better against serious disease. The concern is mostly journalists I think, and people on Twitter. Most immunologists are happy with how the vaccines are going.CorrectHorseBattery said:I never claimed immunity is an on/off switch but there is concern over time that immunity wanes and we will be in a lot of trouble.
We see this in the studies that show two doses gives reduced protection.
They definitely have not concluded there is nothing to worry about0
