LAB still has clear lead in the 40 “Red Wall” seats – politicalbetting.com

Gardenwalker said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

EXC: Brexit guru David Frost is being wooed for a major Cabinet job by Liz Truss, @TheSun can reveal.

Frontrunner understood to want the Tory peer to run the Cabinet Office...

But his pals say discussions are ongoing and no agreement has been reached.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19596630/brexit-guru-david-frost-comeback/

I'm emigrating.

I think the shortlist is between Ireland, Canada, Sweden, and France.

Rwanda looks tempting to me tbh.

Go West, young man.
Canada has energy, a health service, and is climate-change-ready.

Gardenwalker said:

Two big announcements from Liz Truss:

She says that she will redirect £13billion from the health and social care levy away from the NHS and into social care

She suggests that she won't appoint an independent ethics adviser. 'You can't outsource ethics,' she says.

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1562156479611904000?s=21&t=Sa5Lcxp30VsQ5vlen2X6SA

BartholomewRoberts said:

Gardenwalker said:

Two big announcements from Liz Truss:

She says that she will redirect £13billion from the health and social care levy away from the NHS and into social care

She suggests that she won't appoint an independent ethics adviser. 'You can't outsource ethics,' she says.

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1562156479611904000?s=21&t=Sa5Lcxp30VsQ5vlen2X6SA

Source for that? Hasn't she said she'd abolish the health and social care levy?

Quite right on the ethics issue.

IshmaelZ said:

dixiedean said:

Am encouraging my kids to take a serious look at Canada, mind.
BC, not Alberta.

My son has just got residency on the back of 5 years snowboarding and weed consumption in Banff.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

MISTY said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

1. Diseases will always kill us and if they don't then I have bad news about life in any case.
2. I can totally understand that the government, looking as we all did at those pictures from Italy of people dying in the corridors, had to do something and lockdowns was it.
3. The whole point of society is a balance. Tragically it is not to keep every Archie alive at the expense of others who would benefit from those resources.

Once the NHS was in no danger of "collapsing" as in real collapse, not the collapse that the Graun and the various health unions call every other week, then there should absolutely have been no more lockdowns.

There should have been compensation for pubs if they wanted to close and teachers if they wanted to stay home but no mandate.

Our freedoms are so precious and the great and good of PB dismiss them instantly and soil themselves at the first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years. Doesn't bode well for the future.

Which is a greater threat to Freedom: a temporary measure in the face of a novel pandemic, or a sustained campaign by government to restrict political protest and dissent? Is the collapse of the Court system due to chronic neglect perhaps a more pernicious threat? Is the drive to ban freedom of speech under the guise of Fighting Wokery more problematic? Are restrictions on the right to strike actually more consequential? I think one can debate whether temporary lockdowns were really the "first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years".

But, sure, lockdowns should be avoided. The way to avoid lockdowns is with better public health measures. We can look at a country like Japan that never had a national lockdown and had far fewer COVID cases. A better Test & Trace system, with more support for people self-isolating, would have been a huge help in the UK. A better funded primary health care system would have helped.

This ain't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, do public health better.

No, it isn't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, don't implement lockdowns.

How would you have hampered the spread of the virus at those critical times then?

It spread via close contact between people remember - not by black magic.

Strong advice, not legislation. And this would have included strong advice to organisations and companies to stop doing counterproductive things, like supermarkets cutting their hours, which merely ensured that the average number of people in their shops at any given time was higher than it needed to be.

Ok so Muscly goes "You MUST stay at home etc etc" but no laws are changed.

Why is that so much better iyo?

And what happens if people don't respond to the extent necessary to ward off a public health catastrophe?

It isn't warding off anything, its just changing the emphasis of risk. You assume these measures, even short term, are risk free, but they aren't.

Every kind of restriction is a swings and roundabouts calculation. Not how it was presented at the time (it was 'saving lives'), but we now know that is true.

At best lockdown was sacrificing some lives to save others. At best. What's the balance? who knows?

I never assumed the NPIs were cost free. However there was a train about to run us over and it had to be slowed down. The idea of somebody configuring and running a super-complex, multi-level cost/benefit model and trying to incorporate and quantify things like impact on mental health before we did anything is for the birds. We were too late acting as it is and found it hard enough just to model the spread of the virus and hospitalisations and deaths.

You're absolutely right that there wasn't a time to analyse it in advance, but there is time to do so in hindsight and in hindsight lockdown was a mistake.

It was certainly not "too late".

In hindsight paying my home insurance last year was a mistake. My house didn't burn down after all. What a waste of money!

(That's only one argument, of course. It is not at all clear, even in hindsight, that not locking down would have had lower social and economic costs than locking down did.)

If your home insurance only cost a few quid then it was probably worthwhile to have. If your home insurance cost more than your home and required your children to be out of school for months etc then it probably wasn't.

The risk at the time of the first lockdown was that the hospitals would be overwhelmed and that tens of thousands of people would die unnecessarily. Giving the kids a couple on months off school and paying an economic cost was indeed the equivalent of a few quid when compared to the horrifying possible alternative.

The case for the later lockdowns is not quite so clear, but in general locking down more quickly would have meant locking down for a shorter time.

Tens of thousands dying doesn't justify millions losing their education.

Would you sacrifice 100 people's education to prolong a single person's life? If not, why sacrifice millions for tens of thousands?

The only way to justify millions losing education, is if millions were going to die.

Telling outright lies - particularly when they are so easily refuted - doesn't help your argument at all.

There were not 'millions losing their education' There was a small scale disruption for a few months.

Your hyperbole does you no credit.

There was large scale disruption for months on end for millions of people. That is millions losing their education, that time was valuable and won't be returned to them.

Yes some will cope with it, but that doesn't make it OK. The law treats education as so serious that you can be fined for taking kids out of school for a few days for a vacation during term time, but you consider shutting down schools for months on end to be no biggy because you sold your soul to Covid death league tables being the only metric that matters to the exclusion of absolutely everything else.

What about 9 weeks disruption to save half a million lives? Including many parents?

EDIT: tried to fix a blockquote issue

If only we had 9 weeks disruption instead of two years of it. And Sweden etc didn't have proportionately half a million more deaths than us, or their neighbours.

But doing the maths, 9 weeks (we had more) disruption is approximately quarter of a year's disruption. Which is approximately 2.5 million years worth of education lost nationwide. Which valuing education at only 1:1 with an adults lifespan and using the fallacious claim of ten years per death would be equivalent to 250k deaths.

Since I consider a year of a child's education as more valuable than a year of life for an adult, your figures would be approaching a break even point if only education were affected and if your figures were accurate.

But your figures aren't accurate and there was more than just education at stake, so no is my answer. Not worthwhile.

Schools were not closed in Lockdown two. They were closed in Lockdown three for nine weeks.

Have you forgotten lockdown one?

So lockdown 3 was the equivalent of 250k extra deaths valuing education as only 1:1 with an adults lifespan (I'd value education more) only from lockdown three. But you forgot lockdown 1, which was from memory another 8 weeks.

So there's half a million death equivalents right there. Just from education lost at just a 1:1 ratio. Without considering a single other factor at all.

So no, not worthwhile.

You literally said ages ago that we didn’t know what was happening at Lockdown one, but never mind.

And your claim that fifty children losing a week of school equates to one adult dying a year earlier is your own equation.

And if we HAD hurried everyone through covid, we’d certainly have seen well in excess of half a million more deaths plus a totally collapsed health service (seeing yet more deaths).

And those deaths would have trended younger than they did, of course, by loss of healthcare.

Tell me, if you asked a child whether they’d trade several weeks of education for their dead parent back, what would they say, do you think?

How much in the way of weeks of disruption are 50,000-100,000 or more parents of schoolchildren worth? Or even more than that (given, you know, no chance of saving the more saveable age groups by hospital treatment)

Yes I've said that we had no idea of knowing at the time what was happening at lockdown one, but I also said that lockdown one was a mistake "in hindsight".

Lockdown three was a mistake at the time, not just in hindsight. Lockdown one was a mistake in hindsight.

Yes saying 50 people losing a week's education is equivalent to one person losing a years life is my own equation but that's as I said at a 1:1 ratio. As I've said I'd value education that children need for the next 60-70 years plus of their lives as MORE valuable than a week's life at the end of an adults lifespan, but I used 1:1 for simplicity. You can say yourself what you value education to be worth if you'd prefer then we could look using your own numbers. What ratio would you give it if not 1:1, how highly do you value education?

Would you sacrifice a year of a child's education for an extra years life expectancy? Where do you draw the line?

If we say 100k extra deaths = 1 million aggregate life years lost, then considering I'd value a child's education as possibly say 2:1 over an adults span at the end of their life then that would be 0.5 million school years lost across the country. Which divided by ten million school age pupils, is 5% of a school year per pupil. So 2 weeks, if education were the only factor.

So, for clarity, you’d sacrifice 30,000 lives to avoid school ending one week early?

Forced choice would I sacrifice a week of education, unscheduled so unplanned, for ten million or have 30k die from natural causes?

Yes I'd side with the children. You're doing the usual damned lies statistics trick of trying to minimise one number by dividing it by many, while trying to make another sound impressive by not doing so. It's not one week, it's one week for ten million people.

Let's turn the question around and see how you ratio it: Devil comes to you with a Faustian pact, you can sacrifice any amount of your children's education that you choose, from a month to all of it. For every month of their education you take from them you will get a month longer at the end of your life.

How much of their education would you take off them? A few months, or years worth? Or all of it or none?

More realistically, say the swap is 1 week off their education for an extra year of life for me.

I'd go with 10. They miss a term, I get an extra decade.

In which I'd learn to play the flute.

Well I was willing to go with 1 week of education being equivalent of 1 week of life (despite not thinking that's appropriate), but you've decided to value it as 1 week of education is 1 year of life. So lets run the numbers for you.

10 million people lost 17 weeks of education each. So 17 million weeks of education were lost. You have deemed 1 week = 1 year, so that's 17 million years. Going off the ballpark figure of 1 death = 10 years (I dispute this, but lets be generous), then using your "realistically" figures you've deemed the lockdown we did for education as "realistically" the equivalent of 1.7 million deaths.

RandallFlagg said:

Just watched the latest trailer for the Amazon Lord of the Rings show. Is there anybody who actually thinks this won't be anything other than absolutely terrible?

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

That’s hardly a whomp whomp is it? By most accounts the economy is the crucial factor and the difference is 4%. And this is in the red wall.

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

That’s hardly a whomp whomp is it? By most accounts the economy is the crucial factor and the difference is 4%. And this is in the red wall.

Northern_Al said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

The most interesting figure is the immigration one. Pretty astonishing for Labour to have an 11 point lead on that in the Red Wall, I'd have thought.

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

MISTY said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

1. Diseases will always kill us and if they don't then I have bad news about life in any case.
2. I can totally understand that the government, looking as we all did at those pictures from Italy of people dying in the corridors, had to do something and lockdowns was it.
3. The whole point of society is a balance. Tragically it is not to keep every Archie alive at the expense of others who would benefit from those resources.

Once the NHS was in no danger of "collapsing" as in real collapse, not the collapse that the Graun and the various health unions call every other week, then there should absolutely have been no more lockdowns.

There should have been compensation for pubs if they wanted to close and teachers if they wanted to stay home but no mandate.

Our freedoms are so precious and the great and good of PB dismiss them instantly and soil themselves at the first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years. Doesn't bode well for the future.

Which is a greater threat to Freedom: a temporary measure in the face of a novel pandemic, or a sustained campaign by government to restrict political protest and dissent? Is the collapse of the Court system due to chronic neglect perhaps a more pernicious threat? Is the drive to ban freedom of speech under the guise of Fighting Wokery more problematic? Are restrictions on the right to strike actually more consequential? I think one can debate whether temporary lockdowns were really the "first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years".

But, sure, lockdowns should be avoided. The way to avoid lockdowns is with better public health measures. We can look at a country like Japan that never had a national lockdown and had far fewer COVID cases. A better Test & Trace system, with more support for people self-isolating, would have been a huge help in the UK. A better funded primary health care system would have helped.

This ain't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, do public health better.

No, it isn't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, don't implement lockdowns.

How would you have hampered the spread of the virus at those critical times then?

It spread via close contact between people remember - not by black magic.

Strong advice, not legislation. And this would have included strong advice to organisations and companies to stop doing counterproductive things, like supermarkets cutting their hours, which merely ensured that the average number of people in their shops at any given time was higher than it needed to be.

Ok so Muscly goes "You MUST stay at home etc etc" but no laws are changed.

Why is that so much better iyo?

And what happens if people don't respond to the extent necessary to ward off a public health catastrophe?

It isn't warding off anything, its just changing the emphasis of risk. You assume these measures, even short term, are risk free, but they aren't.

Every kind of restriction is a swings and roundabouts calculation. Not how it was presented at the time (it was 'saving lives'), but we now know that is true.

At best lockdown was sacrificing some lives to save others. At best. What's the balance? who knows?

I never assumed the NPIs were cost free. However there was a train about to run us over and it had to be slowed down. The idea of somebody configuring and running a super-complex, multi-level cost/benefit model and trying to incorporate and quantify things like impact on mental health before we did anything is for the birds. We were too late acting as it is and found it hard enough just to model the spread of the virus and hospitalisations and deaths.

You're absolutely right that there wasn't a time to analyse it in advance, but there is time to do so in hindsight and in hindsight lockdown was a mistake.

It was certainly not "too late".

In hindsight paying my home insurance last year was a mistake. My house didn't burn down after all. What a waste of money!

(That's only one argument, of course. It is not at all clear, even in hindsight, that not locking down would have had lower social and economic costs than locking down did.)

If your home insurance only cost a few quid then it was probably worthwhile to have. If your home insurance cost more than your home and required your children to be out of school for months etc then it probably wasn't.

The risk at the time of the first lockdown was that the hospitals would be overwhelmed and that tens of thousands of people would die unnecessarily. Giving the kids a couple on months off school and paying an economic cost was indeed the equivalent of a few quid when compared to the horrifying possible alternative.

The case for the later lockdowns is not quite so clear, but in general locking down more quickly would have meant locking down for a shorter time.

Tens of thousands dying doesn't justify millions losing their education.

Would you sacrifice 100 people's education to prolong a single person's life? If not, why sacrifice millions for tens of thousands?

The only way to justify millions losing education, is if millions were going to die.

Telling outright lies - particularly when they are so easily refuted - doesn't help your argument at all.

There were not 'millions losing their education' There was a small scale disruption for a few months.

Your hyperbole does you no credit.

There was large scale disruption for months on end for millions of people. That is millions losing their education, that time was valuable and won't be returned to them.

Yes some will cope with it, but that doesn't make it OK. The law treats education as so serious that you can be fined for taking kids out of school for a few days for a vacation during term time, but you consider shutting down schools for months on end to be no biggy because you sold your soul to Covid death league tables being the only metric that matters to the exclusion of absolutely everything else.

What about 9 weeks disruption to save half a million lives? Including many parents?

EDIT: tried to fix a blockquote issue

If only we had 9 weeks disruption instead of two years of it. And Sweden etc didn't have proportionately half a million more deaths than us, or their neighbours.

But doing the maths, 9 weeks (we had more) disruption is approximately quarter of a year's disruption. Which is approximately 2.5 million years worth of education lost nationwide. Which valuing education at only 1:1 with an adults lifespan and using the fallacious claim of ten years per death would be equivalent to 250k deaths.

Since I consider a year of a child's education as more valuable than a year of life for an adult, your figures would be approaching a break even point if only education were affected and if your figures were accurate.

But your figures aren't accurate and there was more than just education at stake, so no is my answer. Not worthwhile.

Schools were not closed in Lockdown two. They were closed in Lockdown three for nine weeks.

Have you forgotten lockdown one?

So lockdown 3 was the equivalent of 250k extra deaths valuing education as only 1:1 with an adults lifespan (I'd value education more) only from lockdown three. But you forgot lockdown 1, which was from memory another 8 weeks.

So there's half a million death equivalents right there. Just from education lost at just a 1:1 ratio. Without considering a single other factor at all.

So no, not worthwhile.

You literally said ages ago that we didn’t know what was happening at Lockdown one, but never mind.

And your claim that fifty children losing a week of school equates to one adult dying a year earlier is your own equation.

And if we HAD hurried everyone through covid, we’d certainly have seen well in excess of half a million more deaths plus a totally collapsed health service (seeing yet more deaths).

And those deaths would have trended younger than they did, of course, by loss of healthcare.

Tell me, if you asked a child whether they’d trade several weeks of education for their dead parent back, what would they say, do you think?

How much in the way of weeks of disruption are 50,000-100,000 or more parents of schoolchildren worth? Or even more than that (given, you know, no chance of saving the more saveable age groups by hospital treatment)

Yes I've said that we had no idea of knowing at the time what was happening at lockdown one, but I also said that lockdown one was a mistake "in hindsight".

Lockdown three was a mistake at the time, not just in hindsight. Lockdown one was a mistake in hindsight.

Yes saying 50 people losing a week's education is equivalent to one person losing a years life is my own equation but that's as I said at a 1:1 ratio. As I've said I'd value education that children need for the next 60-70 years plus of their lives as MORE valuable than a week's life at the end of an adults lifespan, but I used 1:1 for simplicity. You can say yourself what you value education to be worth if you'd prefer then we could look using your own numbers. What ratio would you give it if not 1:1, how highly do you value education?

Would you sacrifice a year of a child's education for an extra years life expectancy? Where do you draw the line?

If we say 100k extra deaths = 1 million aggregate life years lost, then considering I'd value a child's education as possibly say 2:1 over an adults span at the end of their life then that would be 0.5 million school years lost across the country. Which divided by ten million school age pupils, is 5% of a school year per pupil. So 2 weeks, if education were the only factor.

So, for clarity, you’d sacrifice 30,000 lives to avoid school ending one week early?

Forced choice would I sacrifice a week of education, unscheduled so unplanned, for ten million or have 30k die from natural causes?

Yes I'd side with the children. You're doing the usual damned lies statistics trick of trying to minimise one number by dividing it by many, while trying to make another sound impressive by not doing so. It's not one week, it's one week for ten million people.

Let's turn the question around and see how you ratio it: Devil comes to you with a Faustian pact, you can sacrifice any amount of your children's education that you choose, from a month to all of it. For every month of their education you take from them you will get a month longer at the end of your life.

How much of their education would you take off them? A few months, or years worth? Or all of it or none?

More realistically, say the swap is 1 week off their education for an extra year of life for me.

I'd go with 10. They miss a term, I get an extra decade.

In which I'd learn to play the flute.

Well I was willing to go with 1 week of education being equivalent of 1 week of life (despite not thinking that's appropriate), but you've decided to value it as 1 week of education is 1 year of life. So lets run the numbers for you.

10 million people lost 17 weeks of education each. So 17 million weeks of education were lost. You have deemed 1 week = 1 year, so that's 17 million years. Going off the ballpark figure of 1 death = 10 years (I dispute this, but lets be generous), then using your "realistically" figures you've deemed the lockdown we did for education as "realistically" the equivalent of 1.7 million deaths.

Which is a good trade, I'd have thought.

I mean, you'd keep your daughters off school for 2 weeks to get yourself an extra 4 years of EngNat libertarian life, wouldn't you?

MoonRabbit said:

RandallFlagg said:

Just watched the latest trailer for the Amazon Lord of the Rings show. Is there anybody who actually thinks this won't be anything other than absolutely terrible?

I’m looking forward to it! The trailers are great. The writing looks strong and wide ranging. They have borrowed music and look feel from the film series.

Week Friday. Will we get all at once or will the ration us

I didn’t like the rationing of better call Saul at end ruined it for me, though the ending was strong.

rottenborough said:

I see Sun says Truss wants Frost as Chief of Staff.

Continuity Johnson on stilts.

Why on earth would any sentient PM want this guy as chief?

rottenborough said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

I see Sun says Truss wants Frost as Chief of Staff.

Continuity Johnson on stilts.

Why on earth would any sentient PM want this guy as chief?

It’s a pathetic desperate sop to the ERG nutjobs ! The cabinet looks like being even worse than the previous shxtshow !

Yep. Truss is incredible. Only she could come up with a worse cabinet than Johnson.

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

The most interesting figure is the immigration one. Pretty astonishing for Labour to have an 11 point lead on that in the Red Wall, I'd have thought.

Yes that's what struck me too. I don't see an obvious reason for it tbh.

nico679 said:

Redirecting funds from an NHS close to collapse to social care is quite something!

Eabhal said:

MoonRabbit said:

RandallFlagg said:

Just watched the latest trailer for the Amazon Lord of the Rings show. Is there anybody who actually thinks this won't be anything other than absolutely terrible?

I’m looking forward to it! The trailers are great. The writing looks strong and wide ranging. They have borrowed music and look feel from the film series.

Week Friday. Will we get all at once or will the ration us

I didn’t like the rationing of better call Saul at end ruined it for me, though the ending was strong.

Far too glossy. Something about the lighting? A mistake the Hobbit and the new Star Wars made.

The 20 year old LotR trilogy looks better than this.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

The most interesting figure is the immigration one. Pretty astonishing for Labour to have an 11 point lead on that in the Red Wall, I'd have thought.

Yes that's what struck me too. I don't see an obvious reason for it tbh.

The dinghy people

The Tories have totally failed. Maybe Labour can do better?

Labour can’t do better. They will do worse, probably. But they are unproven. That’s it

Benpointer said:

Barty's Damascene conversion once he finally realises Truss is significantly worse than useless is going to be an event to behold.

Northern_Al said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Northern_Al said:

Gardenwalker said:

Two big announcements from Liz Truss:

She says that she will redirect £13billion from the health and social care levy away from the NHS and into social care

She suggests that she won't appoint an independent ethics adviser. 'You can't outsource ethics,' she says.

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1562156479611904000?s=21&t=Sa5Lcxp30VsQ5vlen2X6SA

No independent ethics adviser because "you can't outsource ethics"? By that logic, we'd have no independent judiciary because "you can't outsource justice", presumably.

I'm increasingly coming to the view that Truss has more in common with Viktor Orban than with Thatcher.

Not the same thing at all, as the PM is supposed to make the ethical decisions themselves (the advisor is just an advisor) whereas the PM is not supposed to make Justice decisions themselves.

Well, at least you didn't dispute my Orban comparison, so that's something.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

The most interesting figure is the immigration one. Pretty astonishing for Labour to have an 11 point lead on that in the Red Wall, I'd have thought.

Yes that's what struck me too. I don't see an obvious reason for it tbh.

The dinghy people

The Tories have totally failed. Maybe Labour can do better?

Labour can’t do better. They will do worse, probably. But they are unproven. That’s it

dixiedean said:

Am encouraging my kids to take a serious look at Canada, mind.
BC, not Alberta.

Benpointer said:

Fishing said:

stodge said:

None of this makes her sound like a unifier, a conciliator or a re-builder. It's quite clear there will be a new "war" against the Unions which might work in some instances but won't against the nurses or other health workers. As to the rest of us, I'll offer an early prediction based on a few hunches - in contrast to this summer, this winter is going to be very wet and questions about flooding and flood prevention will dominate by February.

Do you think so? Even if the winter is wet, I can't see anything dominating beyond energy bills unless there is a quite unexpected development. After all, even the worst floods only seriously affect a few tens of thousands, while these damned bills will affect tens of millions.

Agreed.

Now, if we happen to have a cold winter, in the 1947 or 1963 league, that would dominate.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Am encouraging my kids to take a serious look at Canada, mind.
BC, not Alberta.

I do wonder if I should have stayed in NZ.

MoonRabbit said:

if they are laying on free buses across Europe they are likely filling heads heads with stories of a country where the streets are full of work and hand outs, that you could easily wire home to save your struggling family whilst you live the highlife of swinging Britain.

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

rottenborough said:

Big move from Truss on social care?

Divert funds from NHS to this Cinderella service?

About bloody time I say.

What the NHS desperately is crying out for is funds diverted away that's for sure.

The country needs it though.

The black hole needs cutting back down to size. We've shovelled nothing but extra money to the NHS for years, shut down society for years to "save the NHS", even shut down schooling to "save the NHS". And its still not enough.

It will never be enough.

MoonRabbit said:

I’ve just glanced the front pages, the Telegraph looks best for actual news - fears support for Ukraine is flagging is the lead. This is good, my Dad gets Telegraph delivered so I can read that at breaky

But my eye was caught by the first of their little “click bait” type ones at bottom - people smugglers offer free bus ride from southern med to the English Channel.
What we are up against here isn’t smuggling gangs exploiting an existing opportunity, but their business model likely encourages it to start with - if they are laying on free buses across Europe they are likely filling heads heads with stories of a country where the streets are full of work and hand outs, that you could easily wire home to save your struggling family whilst you live the highlife of swinging Britain.

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

rottenborough said:

Big move from Truss on social care?

Divert funds from NHS to this Cinderella service?

About bloody time I say.

What the NHS desperately is crying out for is funds diverted away that's for sure.

The country needs it though.

The black hole needs cutting back down to size. We've shovelled nothing but extra money to the NHS for years, shut down society for years to "save the NHS", even shut down schooling to "save the NHS". And its still not enough.

It will never be enough.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

I see Sun says Truss wants Frost as Chief of Staff.

Continuity Johnson on stilts.

Why on earth would any sentient PM want this guy as chief?

I feel sorry for the many Tories like my Dad, who hoped for a long time to get a change for the better from Boris going. ☹️

I think I will go and give him a big hug.

By your Dad you mean yourself or are you being "left wing" today

SouthamObserver said:

There is no sustainable solution to the Channel crossings that does not involve a deal with France. This government cannot deliver one because it would see it as surrender. Another one probably could.

StuartDickson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.

Depends on what you mean by “better”?

If you mean minimising the long term damage to society and the economy, then yes, Sweden did better. A lot better.

Sweden was playing the long game. Most of the rest of the world was running about like a headless chicken.

One shudders to think what’s going to happen when a *real* killer pandemic shows up.

Everyone in Sweden will die. Because you will continue to believe that what you did last time was the right way to go.

You see, this is where you have *totally* misunderstood Swedish society, stamina and respect for independent governmental agencies.

Covid = take care

Real killer pandemic (2035?) = lockdown max = unpleasant, but hey we survived

Swedes will manage both. No probs.

Whereas I suspect that for most countries:

Covid = headless chicken lockdown

Real killer pandemic (2035?) = headless chicken disrespect for government = all fall down

Quite possibly right.

Once bitten, twice shy. I for one won't be prepared to show respect to a future government wanting to strip us of our liberties again. I'm sure others feel the same.

And yours is a perfectly human, and common reaction: once fooled, twice shy.

The Swedish populace were not fooled. Our government and governmental agencies were pretty straight with us. We listened, we digested, we (largely) behaved ourselves.

Ditto when the real killer pandemic comes. (And it will.)

The English populace on the other hand were led by total donkeys. The real damage to English society will only become truly apparent when the real pandemic arrives. You’ll mostly tell them to go fuck themselves. Before promptly croaking it.

I think this is bollocks. The big reason why COVID was quite divisive was the age profile of the people affected. If another pandemic turns up that starts bumping off children, you can be certain that we'll all go like Matt Damon in that film.

Another age profile, say one that disproportionately cut down pre-pubescents?

Same principle: I really do believe that Sweden will handle it far better than England. It is a structural issue: confidence in public authorities is totally shot in England.

It is one reason why Scots are so attracted by the Nordic/Baltic model: create wealth, spread it around, build trust in public institutions.

It’s not rocket science.

And come Ebola VIII it might just make the difference between survival and extinction.

I am not sure there is much trust in Scottish public institutions at the moment.

Perhaps not, but there is more trust in Scottish public institutions than in British public institutions.

Net favourability:

Scottish National Party +5
Scottish Green Party +/-0
Labour -3
Liberal Democrats -13
Conservatives -38

(Ipsos Scotland; 12-15 August; sample size: 1,000)

Net favourability:

Scottish Government +7
UK Government -50

(Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman; 14-18 January; 1,004)

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Which party do Red Wall voters trust the most on...? (Conservative | Labour)

Ukraine (32% | 28%)
Pandemic (32% | 30%)
The Economy (29% | 33%)
The NHS (22% | 41%)
Immigration (21% | 32%)
Levelling Up (17% | 39%)


Whomp whomp

The most interesting figure is the immigration one. Pretty astonishing for Labour to have an 11 point lead on that in the Red Wall, I'd have thought.

Yes that's what struck me too. I don't see an obvious reason for it tbh.

The dinghy people

The Tories have totally failed. Maybe Labour can do better?

Labour can’t do better. They will do worse, probably. But they are unproven. That’s it

I don't have a better theory for that Labour lead on immigration but why on earth would Redwall voters be hugely exercised about dinghy people?

I can understand voters in Dover, Folkestone and along what we must now call the Costa del Soilpipe, being alarmed by it, but Bolsover and Walsall?

Because they're paying attention to it?

Why wouldn't they?

It's passed me by. And the BBC news website.

Ok, I've just found it halfway down the Daily Heil's website. The numbers are shocking and depressing. The Rwanda policy has clearly achieved fuck-all.

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

There is no sustainable solution to the Channel crossings that does not involve a deal with France. This government cannot deliver one because it would see it as surrender. Another one probably could.

This is just comical bull shut

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Two big announcements from Liz Truss:

She says that she will redirect £13billion from the health and social care levy away from the NHS and into social care

She suggests that she won't appoint an independent ethics adviser. 'You can't outsource ethics,' she says.

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1562156479611904000?s=21&t=Sa5Lcxp30VsQ5vlen2X6SA

I was hoping to apply to be the PM's ethics adviser.

I'm eminently qualified.

As is anyone. The one and only necessary and sufficient rule of ethics is, Don't be a c--t. Not difficult.

In other news, I always thought Blade Runner was the best film ever. Just realised I have only previously seen it on vhs and 34". On my new fnaar 55 incher with decent edifiers hitched up, oh my.

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit said:

I’ve just glanced the front pages, the Telegraph looks best for actual news - fears support for Ukraine is flagging is the lead. This is good, my Dad gets Telegraph delivered so I can read that at breaky

But my eye was caught by the first of their little “click bait” type ones at bottom - people smugglers offer free bus ride from southern med to the English Channel.
What we are up against here isn’t smuggling gangs exploiting an existing opportunity, but their business model likely encourages it to start with - if they are laying on free buses across Europe they are likely filling heads heads with stories of a country where the streets are full of work and hand outs, that you could easily wire home to save your struggling family whilst you live the highlife of swinging Britain.

Aren't they just buccaneering entrepreneurs?
Offering services to willing consumers?
Really great to see you back btw.

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

rottenborough said:

Big move from Truss on social care?

Divert funds from NHS to this Cinderella service?

About bloody time I say.

What the NHS desperately is crying out for is funds diverted away that's for sure.

The country needs it though.

The black hole needs cutting back down to size. We've shovelled nothing but extra money to the NHS for years, shut down society for years to "save the NHS", even shut down schooling to "save the NHS". And its still not enough.

It will never be enough.

Electoral suicide for the Tories, whose client vote is dependent on a functioning NHS.

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

There is no sustainable solution to the Channel crossings that does not involve a deal with France. This government cannot deliver one because it would see it as surrender. Another one probably could.

Sooner or later the refugee convention is going to get torn up because it's too easy to abuse in a world of 8 billion people and easy international travel.

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

There is no sustainable solution to the Channel crossings that does not involve a deal with France. This government cannot deliver one because it would see it as surrender. Another one probably could.

Sooner or later the refugee convention is going to get torn up because it's too easy to abuse in a world of 8 billion people and easy international travel.

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

There is no sustainable solution to the Channel crossings that does not involve a deal with France. This government cannot deliver one because it would see it as surrender. Another one probably could.

This is just comical bullshit. France has 900,000 minimum illegal migrants from Africa etc. Because of the EU/Schengen they can’t keep them out of France. So they want as many gone to the UK as possible. That’s it

You’re a clown

What's your solution then smartarse?