Starmer has better than a 13.9% chance of being next PM – politicalbetting.com

AlistairM said:

Australia very late to the toilet roll shortage party.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-10/how-to-deal-covid19-supermarket-supply-shortages/100744160

alex_ said:

So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.

eek said:

alex_ said:

So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.

Hang on.

All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.

alex_ said:

eek said:

alex_ said:

So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.

Hang on.

All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.

I understand the immigration minister had a four hour window to reach a decision - and declined to use his discretionary powers

eek said:

alex_ said:

eek said:

alex_ said:

So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.

Hang on.

All that has happened so far is that Novax is no longer in a quarantine hotel so can get to a tennis court to have a knock around and see what 5 days without exercise has done to his fitness.

I understand the immigration minister had a four hour window to reach a decision - and declined to use his discretionary powers

You seem to understand incorrectly - the 4 hours were to take him back in for questioning.

If Australia decide to throw him out for lying or falsified evidence they can do that at any point.

Fairliered said:

Any reason why England only legislation can’t be conducted on Monday and Tuesday, with UK wide legislation conducted on Wednesday, Thursday on Friday?

Endillion said:

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:

Endillion said:

HYUFD said:

Endillion said:

OldKingCole said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.

However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that

“England only legislation”?

So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.

Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.

In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name

That makes no sense.

It makes absolute sense.

The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK

The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority.
The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.

SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy

Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.

He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.

Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.

1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.

2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.

And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).

It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.

*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches

Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.

If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.

It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD

The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.

Almost certainly true as of today.

If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.

Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Swedish PM presents new restrictions:

Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees

Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.

Adults must minimise indoors contact.

Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated
Up to 500 if vaccinated.

Universities can resume distance learning.

Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50

Private parties: max 20 must be seated.

Restrictions on sports events indoors

Etc

Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.

We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.

The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.

As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!

Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.

Murray's tweet about Farage was good.

This article does a good job of explaining why some of us have always been Nadal/Federer guys.
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/you-dont-need-a-mentorfind-a-nemesis

Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Northern_Al said:

Endillion said:

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:

Endillion said:

HYUFD said:

Endillion said:

OldKingCole said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer has an excellent chance of being PM, agreed.

However on current polls it will be more Cameron 2010 in a hung parliament than Blair 1997 with a landslide majority. If the Tories win most seats he would need SNP support to make him PM too while the Tories could still get their way on England only legislation as the SNP would abstain on that

“England only legislation”?

So, England does have a legislature. Contrary to the bollocks on these threads yesterday.

Not at the moment as there is a Tory majority in the UK and in England.

In 2023/24 however if there is a Labour + SNP majority in the UK but a Tory majority still in England alone in a hung parliament, if the SNP continue to abstain on English only legislation then England would have its own parliament in all but name

That makes no sense.

It makes absolute sense.

The SNP would make Starmer UK PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would not however vote with Starmer to vote with Labour MPs on English only legislation if the Tories still had a majority of MPs in England even if no longer a majority of MPs across the UK

The composition of the MPs makes no difference at all to the constitutional status of English legislation or the parliamentary process for passing it. Bills are marked as English-only, and are voted for on a majority.
The party composition of parliament only affects the character of the bills that are attempted and passed. The truth of falsity of England having a parliament is unrelated to who the PM is, what legislation they are attempting, and whether they succeed in passing it.

SNP MPs abstain on English-only legislation. So if Starmer needed SNP MPs to become UK PM he could only get UK wide legislation through, he could not pass any English-only legislation so he would lead a government that could not legislate on English domestic policy

Yeah, they could. They would just have to get the agreement of the Conservatives. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Because in our friends' mind the president generation of Conservative MPs are mindless zombies who will never vote for any policies except those espoused by Central Office.

He's right. It would make absolutely no sense for Tory backbenchers to prop up a Starmer Government in England, while the SNP helped them pass UK-wide legislation. I would expect any Tory MP who volunteered to do so, to suffer the same fate as Grieve et al, immediately.

Indeed, if Starmer fails to win a majority at the next general election, or at least most seats in a hung parliament, then he could still become PM even if the Tories have a majority in England still but he has a choice.

1. Agree a deal with the SNP that requires indyref2 and devomax but means he cannot get England only legislation through.

2. Agree a deal with the Conservatives that avoids indyref2 and means he can get England only legislation through but infuriates the left and the SNP.

And in practice, 2) is off the table, because half the activists would go berserk, a good chunk of the MPs* would refuse to co-operate, and they'd get smashed at the next election (which would happen as soon as the Conservatives were confident they'd get a majority out of it; probably after around 18 months).

It's baffling to me that people think that Conservative MPs would unnecessarily prop up a minority Labour administration, just out of sheer goodwill. Starmer's only doing the same now for long-term tactical reasons (correctly, and on an issue where his MPs are basically in favour anyway), and he's still getting it in the neck from various groupings on his side.

*All the Corbynites, for starters; which is ironic when you think about how often their figurehead voted with the Conservatives the last time he was on the Government benches

Indeed, Corbyn is already talking about starting his own party if not readimitted to Labour.

If Starmer formed a minority government after the next general election with Tory support, Corbyn would definitely start that new party and take a number of leftwing Labour MPs with him.

It would be like a UK Die Linke during the German years of grand coalition between the CDU and SPD

The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.

Almost certainly true as of today.

If Labour activists and MPs work their socks off to deliver a GE result in 2024 that wins enough seats to make Labour the largest party, and Starmer repays their hard work by going into coalition (formally or otherwise) with the Tories, then it starts to look less definitive.

Put simply, what is the point of being a Labour party activist if the best you can hope for is being the marginally larger bit of a National Coalition with the Enemy?

I'm sorry, but the idea of a National Coalition between Labour and Tories is a non-starter. It wouldn't just be the far left members that desert Labour - it would be most of us. And the same for the Tories, no doubt.

RochdalePioneers said:

Fairliered said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.

Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.

Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.

For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report

a) could potentially be very expensive. OTOH how many people don’t have any, or insufficient, insurance?

I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.

High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.

Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...

turbotubbs said:

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fairliered said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.

Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.

Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.

For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report

a) could potentially be very expensive. OTOH how many people don’t have any, or insufficient, insurance?

I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.

High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.

Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...

AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.

I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.

turbotubbs said:

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).

Taz said:

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Same here. My Dad called his GP, and was triaged, remotely diagnosed with a chest infection. He was prescribed anti biotics. They did little good. He got worse. Kept little food down. He actually had pneumonia and ended up going to hospital because of it.

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fairliered said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.

Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.

Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.

For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report

a) could potentially be very expensive. OTOH how many people don’t have any, or insufficient, insurance?

I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.

High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.

Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...

AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.

I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.

I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.

Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".

No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).

Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?

Here's the thing - its a direct quote from a minister reported to the BBC. But isn't backed up by the actual regulations which have 1st February only. Fun times ahead!

Gallowgate said:

turbotubbs said:

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).

Im covid positive unfortunately

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.

Top (Topping?) trolling.

Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fairliered said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.

Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.

Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.

For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report

a) could potentially be very expensive. OTOH how many people don’t have any, or insufficient, insurance?

I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.

High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.

Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...

AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.

I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.

I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.

Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".

No, your comments are fair enough. Actually it's been on my mind a fair bit - my late father's house is an unusual one comprising an upstairs flat - do I need an alarm in the ground floor lobby (sole access) and in the separately accessed washhouse? I have played safe (so to speak).

Do you have a link for that "reasonable period" out of interest?

Here's the thing - its a direct quote from a minister reported to the BBC. But isn't backed up by the actual regulations which have 1st February only. Fun times ahead!

Alistair said:

Random world Covid observations.

I thought it looked like Swedish ICU Covid occupancy was falling after a rapid rise so I am surprised by the new restrictions.

Swedish ICU Occupancy



Looks like Covid Admissions have started increasing again in Gauteng in SA. Overall it looks like Deaths are still rising and that Admissions for the country have levelled off after falling a bit.

alex_ said:

Malmesbury said:

CarlottaVance said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

Top of one league:



Bottom of another:

It's the age stratification of the UK rollout. Best in the world.

Which Starmer tried to banjax:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55828160

Labour wants to bring forward the vaccination of key workers alongside others in high risk groups.

As the Guernsey CMO patiently explained when asked, facing the same calls "who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"

"who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"

Yes, that is the money quote in all this.

The evidence was exceptionally clear - by far and away the biggest determinant of outcome, for the unvaccinated, was (and is) age.

It’s almost as if a lot of countries were padding their stats vaccinating people (eg children) who overall would gain only marginal benefit and then using these stats to claim that the success of the U.K. rollout was a mirage.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Dura_Ace said:

AUKUS bears fruit (for General Dynamics).

https://thehill.com/policy/international/asia-pacific/588951-australia-agrees-to-35-billion-tank-deal-with-us-report

75 x M1A2 SEPv3 is a lot of tank for the ADF.

Does no-one in Australia own a map? With whom are they expecting to fight a *land* war?

tlg86 said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.

Top (Topping?) trolling.

Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?

He'll treat the first few rounds as his warm up. He'll win it if he plays.

rcs1000 said:

alex_ said:

Malmesbury said:

CarlottaVance said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

Top of one league:



Bottom of another:

It's the age stratification of the UK rollout. Best in the world.

Which Starmer tried to banjax:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55828160

Labour wants to bring forward the vaccination of key workers alongside others in high risk groups.

As the Guernsey CMO patiently explained when asked, facing the same calls "who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"

"who do you want me NOT to vaccinate so these people can be?"

Yes, that is the money quote in all this.

The evidence was exceptionally clear - by far and away the biggest determinant of outcome, for the unvaccinated, was (and is) age.

It’s almost as if a lot of countries were padding their stats vaccinating people (eg children) who overall would gain only marginal benefit and then using these stats to claim that the success of the U.K. rollout was a mirage.

I don't think they were padding their stats: they had lots of vaccines, and they reckoned that minimising community transmission (especially pre-Omicron) was the best way to get rid of Covid.

What's unique about the UK is just how rare vaccine scepticism is among older people; other than Portugal, I don't think any other country comes close to UK vaccination rates for the over 60s.

Stuartinromford said:

rcs1000 said:

OGH is spot on in this analysis.

Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.

Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.

Which, basically, means Starmer.

And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.

So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.

This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.

So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.

The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.

So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.

And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.

Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

NickPalmer said:

Northern_Al said:

The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.

I think that's right, though I wouldn't rule out a bit of scare tactics on both sides at the moment - the naming of specific women candidates who the party might put up against him is in the same category.

I'm not clear about Labnour's rulebook position anyway. As far as I recall, any member who's been a member for a few years is entitled to put themselves forward, and as a condition must say they are willing to accept the whip. Corbyn's position is "sure, I'll accept it tomorrow" and the leadership's position is "only when you've taken down that FB post and apologised". I don't think the rulebook says you must be willing to take the whip AND you must demonstrate that you'll be offered it. So as a member in good standing I don't see why he couldn't simply apply for reselection.

It's true that the CLP is not as solidly left-wing as you might expect, but I've no doubt that he'd get reselected if he's able to apply.

Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.

Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.

Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1547648/gina-miller-news-new-political-party-true-and-fair-party-brexit

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

Gallowgate said:

turbotubbs said:

Gallowgate said:

Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.

Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).

Im covid positive unfortunately

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Swedish PM presents new restrictions:

Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees

Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.

Adults must minimise indoors contact.

Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated
Up to 500 if vaccinated.

Universities can resume distance learning.

Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50

Private parties: max 20 must be seated.

Restrictions on sports events indoors

Etc

Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.

We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.

The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.

As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!

Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.

Murray's tweet about Farage was good.

This article does a good job of explaining why some of us have always been Nadal/Federer guys.
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/you-dont-need-a-mentorfind-a-nemesis

Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.

If he has any sense he will claim this has screwed up his preparation and withdraw for that reason, because if he gets to play this isn't going to go away for him. Booing in the stands for instance? Won't look good.

I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

NickPalmer said:

Northern_Al said:

The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.

I think that's right, though I wouldn't rule out a bit of scare tactics on both sides at the moment - the naming of specific women candidates who the party might put up against him is in the same category.

I'm not clear about Labnour's rulebook position anyway. As far as I recall, any member who's been a member for a few years is entitled to put themselves forward, and as a condition must say they are willing to accept the whip. Corbyn's position is "sure, I'll accept it tomorrow" and the leadership's position is "only when you've taken down that FB post and apologised". I don't think the rulebook says you must be willing to take the whip AND you must demonstrate that you'll be offered it. So as a member in good standing I don't see why he couldn't simply apply for reselection.

It's true that the CLP is not as solidly left-wing as you might expect, but I've no doubt that he'd get reselected if he's able to apply.

Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.

Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.

Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1547648/gina-miller-news-new-political-party-true-and-fair-party-brexit

Endillion said:

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

NickPalmer said:

Northern_Al said:

The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.

I think that's right, though I wouldn't rule out a bit of scare tactics on both sides at the moment - the naming of specific women candidates who the party might put up against him is in the same category.

I'm not clear about Labnour's rulebook position anyway. As far as I recall, any member who's been a member for a few years is entitled to put themselves forward, and as a condition must say they are willing to accept the whip. Corbyn's position is "sure, I'll accept it tomorrow" and the leadership's position is "only when you've taken down that FB post and apologised". I don't think the rulebook says you must be willing to take the whip AND you must demonstrate that you'll be offered it. So as a member in good standing I don't see why he couldn't simply apply for reselection.

It's true that the CLP is not as solidly left-wing as you might expect, but I've no doubt that he'd get reselected if he's able to apply.

Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.

Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.

Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1547648/gina-miller-news-new-political-party-true-and-fair-party-brexit

"True & Fair" sounds more like an accountancy firm than a political party.

I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

MattW said:

Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1547648/gina-miller-news-new-political-party-true-and-fair-party-brexit

SandyRentool said:

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

Already primed and ready to go



vs

Those lads were ahead of the curve when it comes to the wearing of face coverings in an indoor setting.

Complying with "group of six" rule too!

Endillion said:

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

NickPalmer said:

Northern_Al said:

The evidence that Corbyn is considering starting his own party is incredibly thin, comprising a bit of speculation in the press. His own Twitter feed indicates continuing support for Labour, and is devoted to attacking the Tories. And if, by any chance, Corbyn did go rogue, the number of Labour MPs he'd take with him would be in single figures, and I think would be nearer to 0 than 9.

I think that's right, though I wouldn't rule out a bit of scare tactics on both sides at the moment - the naming of specific women candidates who the party might put up against him is in the same category.

I'm not clear about Labnour's rulebook position anyway. As far as I recall, any member who's been a member for a few years is entitled to put themselves forward, and as a condition must say they are willing to accept the whip. Corbyn's position is "sure, I'll accept it tomorrow" and the leadership's position is "only when you've taken down that FB post and apologised". I don't think the rulebook says you must be willing to take the whip AND you must demonstrate that you'll be offered it. So as a member in good standing I don't see why he couldn't simply apply for reselection.

It's true that the CLP is not as solidly left-wing as you might expect, but I've no doubt that he'd get reselected if he's able to apply.

Surely his problem is simply that as he is not getting the whip back he is ineligible to be even considered for selection. If he has any sense he will retire gracefully and become the totemic figurehead for the trot left.

Some of the posts from the Bastani wing of politics have been comedy genius - apparently its an outrage for the Labour Party to plan to select a candidate.

Gina Miller, however, *is* launching a new political party.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1547648/gina-miller-news-new-political-party-true-and-fair-party-brexit

"True & Fair" sounds more like an accountancy firm than a political party.

I know the counterpoint to this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway: if the name of your political party implies a mission statement that no-one sane would disagree with, then you have fundamentally misunderstood how politics works.

stodge said:

eek said:

It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.

Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.

The Armageddon scenario might be the Conservatives losing Kensington & Chelsea to Labour......

Stocky said:

A probability question for you.

Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.

He can choose A or B below:

A) He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.

OR

B Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.

Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:

1) He should take Option A
2) He should take Option B
3) His chances of winning are the same for Aand B

darkage said:

FPT

@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.

More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.

Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Stocky said:

A probability question for you.

Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.

He can choose A or B below:

A) He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.

OR

B Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.

Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:

1) He should take Option A
2) He should take Option B
3) His chances of winning are the same for Aand B

I can't stop giggling because your "bracket B" turned into sunglasses

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Swedish PM presents new restrictions:

Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees

Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.

Adults must minimise indoors contact.

Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated
Up to 500 if vaccinated.

Universities can resume distance learning.

Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50

Private parties: max 20 must be seated.

Restrictions on sports events indoors

Etc

Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.

We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.

The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.

As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!

Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.

Murray's tweet about Farage was good.

This article does a good job of explaining why some of us have always been Nadal/Federer guys.
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/you-dont-need-a-mentorfind-a-nemesis

Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.

If he has any sense he will claim this has screwed up his preparation and withdraw for that reason, because if he gets to play this isn't going to go away for him. Booing in the stands for instance? Won't look good.

I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.

He's used to playing against the crowd though. But, yes it might be on another level this time. Also the disrupted prep and leakage of energy. For these ressons I've layed him at 2.7.

Stocky said:

A probability question for you.

Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.

He can choose A or B below:

A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.

OR

B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.

Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:

1) He should take Option A
2) He should take Option B
3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B

ping said:

Are the markets turning?