Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tuesday is the 54th anniversary the last time a Labour leader

245678

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,077
    I can imagine him saying the same thing about the trenches in WW1.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,419
    edited March 29

    kinabalu said:

    The thing I find really difficult about many of the Corbynistas (including the man himself) is the apparent lack of concern over the point made in this article.

    Something I hear a lot (from nice people very often) is, "Ah, but he inspired ME". To which one can only respond, "It's not all about you, mate... if you really believe in it yourself, it's about all those less well off people who have a Conservative Government for the foreseeable future".

    Labour used to be packed with pragmatists who wouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good - including some privately hard left folk with the sense to know that their view was not a majority one, and the grace to fall in behind something well short of their ideal in order to get things done.

    The 2015 defeat really stung. Decent pragmatic leader, moderate policies, a classic centre/left offering after 5 years of Con/Lib hard times. But -

    "No thank you," said the British public. "Here, have 30% of the vote."

    That explains some of it.

    Also, if the media insist on presenting a Labour leader like Ed Miliband as "Red Ed", and his policies as "Marxist", it begs an obvious question -

    Why not give them the real thing?
    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?
    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
    This is politics from a couple of years ago, I'm afraid. Johnson had already committed to what was very likely significantly higher spending than Balls would have allowed MIliband in 2015, even before the crisis. Now we're in an either temporary or less so, different Tory phase altogether, more reminiscent of the 1950s and early 1960s.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,411
    .... if he can tear himself away from Fox News.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,257
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "The true number of people infected with coronavirus in the UK could be as high as 1.6 million, with over half of those cases outside of London, analysis by health care data experts suggests.

    And with a predicted daily growth rate of 20 per cent that figure may now stand at 2.8 million people, just three days after the modelling was carried out, reports The Sunday Telegraph.

    Edge Health, a UK health care data analysis company, revealed that while the official figure of coronavirus cases stood at 10,000 on March 26, the company's estimated true figure for infections in the UK was 1,614,505."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164093/More-1-6million-people-England-infected-coronavirus.html

    If we have 1000 deaths then assuming a 1% mortality rate that is 100,000 infections. Since deaths must occur after infection and symptons appear, you can work backward - the lockdown started a week ago. If it takes 10 days to die and 11 to develop symptons then that is 21 days "inbuilt" to the system.
    If we assume doubling every 3 days pre lockdown then we've got 15 days of pre-lockdown lag to deal with on an exponential growth pattern. Say 3 days to double in this phase, that's 5 "doublings" past 100,000.

    100 -> 200 -> 400 -> 800 -> 1.6 million infected pre-lockdown. Then 6 days of slower growth % wise to get to 2.3 million.
    Which means we can expect at least 16,000 dead in the next three weeks. Probably 2-3 times more, as the health service becomes overwhelmed. Grim stuff.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,035
    Back of the fag packet calculation says it is likely they'll all have it.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,848
    I have no idea what any of this means but maybe the cleverer people on here might like it

  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 606

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:



    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.

    "The British reversal

    A UK critical care doctor on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/fnl0n6/im_a_critical_care_doctor_working_in_a_uk_high/#fla1iq6 wrote a great explanation of their recent about-face on coronavirus strategy.

    They say that over the past few years, Britain developed a cutting-edge new strategy for dealing with pandemics by building herd immunity. It was actually really novel and exciting and they were anxious to try it out. When the coronavirus came along, the government plugged its spread rate, death rate, etc into the strategy and got the plan Johnson originally announced. This is why he kept talking about how evidence-based it was and how top scientists said this was the best way to do things.

    But other pandemics don’t require ventilators nearly as often as coronavirus does. So the model, which was originally built around flu, didn’t include a term for ventilator shortages. Once someone added that in, the herd immunity strategy went from clever idea to total disaster, and the UK had to perform a disastrous about-face. Something something technocratic hubris vs. complexity of the real world."

    https://slatestarcodex.com/

    The blog of a liberal US psychiatrist (but not particularly psychiatry focused) with a genius for scraping interesting links off the internet. My TIL today from him is that the technique of giving yourself a tiny bit of virus to make yourself just a little bit ill is called variolation.
    Yes this sounds accurate. Four weeks ago on here I was saying their modelling was likely to have some key baseline assumptions which were false. That they couldn't see the wood for the trees etc.

    There will be an almighty row about those mistakes once this is all done because it delayed the necessary prep-work that could have been done in February. But for now the focus should be on the next battle.
    If you look back, there were plenty of people pointing out that we completely lacked sufficient ICU capacity and (for myself) I'd figured that they were pursuing a plan, without realising that the 'enemy' was in fact completely different. Given that we've heard about division about the herd immunity idea in the group making decisions, that's not just some random bloke on the internet working that out.

    When I heard the initial plan on that fateful Thursday just over a fortnight ago. I just flipped. It didn't take a superforecaster to work out that it was not based on the reality on the ground.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,956

    twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1244268005149880321

    As a number of the products are in Polish, perhaps another straw in the wind of the anecdotal stories discussed last night.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,500
    Pulpstar said:

    Back of the fag packet calculation says it is likely they'll all have it.
    Back of the fag packet suggests it is probably an extended family spanning (say) four to six households, not 25.
  • glwglw Posts: 6,365
    GIN1138 said:

    So as Neil Ferguson says we probably need to be locked down until June, I await the screams from the media that this is too long and unsustainable (after they wanted us locked down at the start of March).

    I've thought all the way along it would be three months of lock down from March to June so wouldn't be a surprise to me.
    The Imperial College paper that lead to the change of strategy examines a three month period for mitigation strategies, with another month of social distancing for the over 70s. That's the approach we have abandoned. The path we are taking now is suppression, for which the paper models a five month period, which could be extended. Given that I'm highly confident in stating that most journalists, pundits, commentators, and even most politicians haven't bothered to read the paper, because they sure as hell do not seem to be aware of what the forecasts mean or how they are to be achieved.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,614
    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    You've not explained why Ed who was laughed at for claiming Labour didn't spend too much was "timid".
  • Paging the PBers who are also schooling their kids at the moment, are you planning on giving them the full two/three weeks off at Easter?

    Please say yes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,705
    Scott_xP said:
    People still pretending not to understand an escalating response and deciding u-turns and volte faces the only possibility.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,577
    Terrible spread indeed. Not even Hawaiian pizza on offer.....
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,000
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    I can't see how this will end well for India.

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6439aOtzEWs

    I'm pretty sure I said months ago that India would end up being the worst country affected by this, if it took hold there. There's way too many people for the area, millions living in shanty towns and no concept of personal space at all.
    So many other factors going against them. The state and regional governance isn't exactly known for its ability in organisation, poor education, lack of proper records of citizens.

    They have the population of China, without the might of a massive authoritarian machine that is ruthless and can be extremely efficient in directing the machinery of the state / business to do as required at the drop of a hat.
    Precisely. No matter whether we believe the Chinese numbers, China is unique in being able to take the actions they did. India has little effective governance and state security apparatus.
    India is also far far poorer than China - gdp per capita is more than 4 times higher in China, with generally poor infrastructure of all kinds, and in some parts low levels of literacy. Society is divided, with really awful Hindu nationalists in power. I'm just hoping they somehow escape a major epidemic.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563
    edited March 29
    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    Music to the ears of all of us blues. :smiley:
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,830

    Has another mentioned Boardwalk Empire?

    No - well reminded. Tier Two show on my list.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,915
    They shouldn't have dispersed the guests. They should've been bundled into the back of some police meatwagons and carted off to a very remote campsite, to live in leaky tents under armed guard for three weeks.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 231
    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,206
    edited March 29
    Stocky said:

    Has another mentioned Boardwalk Empire?

    No - well reminded. Tier Two show on my list.
    Has The Night Manager been mentioned?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,830
    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    From previous thread. I missed a show from my original list: This is England.

    Saw the film which was excellent. Sounds like the series is as good.

    Have you seen Top Boy?
    No - thanks for that - will start on this tonight.

    To my shame I`ve realised I`ve left Peaky Blinders off my list. Top show that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025

    I think a similar thing explains the Conservatives going from Hague to IDS in 2001 - a feeling that you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. Unlike Labour, they got cold feet.

    Instinctively, Starmer feels like Howard to me. Not particularly likable, but competent and serious. Probably not the one, but very possibly the one before the one.

    Yes, something of the Corbyns about IDS.

    Starmer? So hard to predict anything with this virus. We will likely emerge as a virtually bankrupt nation with the hit from Brexit still to come.

    FWIW I think he is our next PM. And I don't envy him one bit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,614
    edited March 29

    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.

    What's wrong (or right?) with Rachel Reeves?

    If you really want to troll the Corbynists I'd rather see it go to Rachel Riley.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,577
    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    From previous thread. I missed a show from my original list: This is England.

    Saw the film which was excellent. Sounds like the series is as good.

    Have you seen Top Boy?
    No - thanks for that - will start on this tonight.

    To my shame I`ve realised I`ve left Peaky Blinders off my list. Top show that.
    First two series anyway.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,419
    edited March 29

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    You've not explained why Ed who was laughed at for claiming Labour didn't spend too much was "timid".
    Miliband's more timid aspect was essentially imposed by Ed Balls, pushing to move closer to a position of accepting austerity, and in particular benefit cuts. HIs actual instincts are much closer to Starmer's 1950-60s soft left - it was Ed Miliband who convinced his friend Starmer to run for parliament, after all - than Balls', which are rooted in the Blair/Brown years.

    There were some relatively bold policies, which would have been less controversial in the 1950s, like on energy markets, rent controls, and workers on boards, which Theresa May's administration briefly pretended to adopt, as window dressing, before Boris's big spending promises on infrastructure, health, benefits and police first drove a coach and horses through the 2015 position, and then the virus flattened and laid waste to its whole landscape.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776

    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.

    What's wrong (or right?) with Rachel Reeves?

    If you really want to troll the Corbynists I'd rather see it go to Rachel Riley.
    At least Riley can do maths!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,206
    Scott_xP said:
    Worth re-reading Sassoon's poem mentioned in the letter:

    The General

    "Good-morning, good-morning!” the General said
    When we met him last week on our way to the line.
    Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
    And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
    “He's a cheery old card,” grunted Harry to Jack
    As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.

    But he did for them both by his plan of attack.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025
    felix said:

    Music to the ears of all of us blues. :smiley:

    Then you're not listening properly.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,830

    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    From previous thread. I missed a show from my original list: This is England.

    Saw the film which was excellent. Sounds like the series is as good.

    Have you seen Top Boy?
    No - thanks for that - will start on this tonight.

    To my shame I`ve realised I`ve left Peaky Blinders off my list. Top show that.
    First two series anyway.
    I`ve loved all of it
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    From previous thread. I missed a show from my original list: This is England.

    Saw the film which was excellent. Sounds like the series is as good.

    Have you seen Top Boy?
    No - thanks for that - will start on this tonight.

    To my shame I`ve realised I`ve left Peaky Blinders off my list. Top show that.
    Top Boy Summerhouse is the place to start, there are two seasons of that before Top Boy if you want to stay chronological.

    Eurosport showing London 2012 Super Saturday at the moment, interesting the repeated high praise for Salazar, and the commentator took the mick out of the mo-bot....disapprovingly saying that gesture will never catch on......
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,830

    Stocky said:

    Has another mentioned Boardwalk Empire?

    No - well reminded. Tier Two show on my list.
    Has The Night Manager been mentioned?
    No - I liked that a lot.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,986
    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,116

    I can't see how this will end well for India.

    Social distancing is an impossibility in many places in Asia and Africa. It'll have to be a herd immunity strategy in those places.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,122

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I'm puzzled as to what constitutes a "working majority" ?

    Wilson won a majority in October 1974 as did John Major in 1992 and David Cameron in 2015.

    Wilson lost his majority and the Labour Government under Callaghan was ultimately felled by a VoNC in early 1979. Major's Government went pretty much its full term and Cameron's Government could have gon e on until 2020 had the EU referendum not intervened.

    May had a majority (except on the not insignificant issue of Brexit) until 2017 when she threw it away.

    I'd argue both Major and Cameron won working majorities as well - Wilson arguably not (though in October 1964 he only won by 4).

    Working majority >30

    Landslide majority >99
    Says you. There's no formal definition.

    I'd say Major had a working majority in 1992 (gradually eroded and eliminated by by-elections) in that he could be confident of getting the vast majority of his business through, and winning confidence votes, without making deals outside his party (although Maastricht was plainly at considerable effort). Wilson was always shakier from 1974 and, of course, Callaghan had to enter a Lib-Lab pact in 1977.

    Equally, "landslide" is a movable feast. I'd credit Johnson with a landslide in November. Whilst "only" 80 seats, it's very hard to see him really struggling on aspects of his agenda (maybe there will be a shock somewhere, but being a whip will be a pretty easy life). This is partly because the margin over the main opposition is very big. Arguably, Blair won a landslide in 2005 with a 66 seat majority - it didn't feel like one in that he was losing quite a few seats, but it was still a big enough majority that he didn't really need to lose too much sleep before votes.
    I was following the Institute for Government parameters.
    And what are they basing it on?

    In spite of the rather pompous name, the Institute for Government is just a think tank.
    Based on things like being able to pass major budgets and Queen's Speech etc and general legislation.

    So on that basis Major's majority wasn't a working majority.
    He only had 21 iirc
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,892
    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    So as Neil Ferguson says we probably need to be locked down until June, I await the screams from the media that this is too long and unsustainable (after they wanted us locked down at the start of March).

    I've thought all the way along it would be three months of lock down from March to June so wouldn't be a surprise to me.
    The Imperial College paper that lead to the change of strategy examines a three month period for mitigation strategies, with another month of social distancing for the over 70s. That's the approach we have abandoned. The path we are taking now is suppression, for which the paper models a five month period, which could be extended. Given that I'm highly confident in stating that most journalists, pundits, commentators, and even most politicians haven't bothered to read the paper, because they sure as hell do not seem to be aware of what the forecasts mean or how they are to be achieved.
    From their report 12:

    "Moreover, suppression strategies will need to be maintained in some manner until vaccines or effective treatments become available to avoid the risk of later epidemics"

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776
    Public service announcement - this should be playing on the radio:

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,577
    IanB2 said:

    I heard on US tv yesterday, apparently there only 12 companies in the world that make ventilators at any sort of scale.

    Who needs a giant ventilator, though? ;)
    Or indeed, Airfix making them 1/72 scale.....
  • glwglw Posts: 6,365

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    So as Neil Ferguson says we probably need to be locked down until June, I await the screams from the media that this is too long and unsustainable (after they wanted us locked down at the start of March).

    I've thought all the way along it would be three months of lock down from March to June so wouldn't be a surprise to me.
    The Imperial College paper that lead to the change of strategy examines a three month period for mitigation strategies, with another month of social distancing for the over 70s. That's the approach we have abandoned. The path we are taking now is suppression, for which the paper models a five month period, which could be extended. Given that I'm highly confident in stating that most journalists, pundits, commentators, and even most politicians haven't bothered to read the paper, because they sure as hell do not seem to be aware of what the forecasts mean or how they are to be achieved.
    From their report 12:

    "Moreover, suppression strategies will need to be maintained in some manner until vaccines or effective treatments become available to avoid the risk of later epidemics"

    2 months on, 1 month off is what they looked at. I don't know how well that's going to go down with the public.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,206

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,726
    Andy_JS said:

    I can't see how this will end well for India.

    Social distancing is an impossibility in many places in Asia and Africa. It'll have to be a herd immunity strategy in those places.
    Social distancing is a privilege that not everyone even in the UK is going to be able to manage.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,986
    edited March 29

    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.

    What's wrong (or right?) with Rachel Reeves?

    If you really want to troll the Corbynists I'd rather see it go to Rachel Riley.
    There is abundant evidence that Rachel Riley can count - that's an automatic disqualification from the Labour front bench...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025

    You've not explained why Ed who was laughed at for claiming Labour didn't spend too much was "timid".

    The manifesto. The policies offered. The way he communicated them. Always one eye on the tabloids. Treading on eggshells not to frighten either the horses or Middle England. He was timid. It was timid. Not all of the time - e.g. the incident you mention, that was admirable - but on the whole.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,999

    kinabalu said:

    The thing I find really difficult about many of the Corbynistas (including the man himself) is the apparent lack of concern over the point made in this article.

    Something I hear a lot (from nice people very often) is, "Ah, but he inspired ME". To which one can only respond, "It's not all about you, mate... if you really believe in it yourself, it's about all those less well off people who have a Conservative Government for the foreseeable future".

    Labour used to be packed with pragmatists who wouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good - including some privately hard left folk with the sense to know that their view was not a majority one, and the grace to fall in behind something well short of their ideal in order to get things done.

    The 2015 defeat really stung. Decent pragmatic leader, moderate policies, a classic centre/left offering after 5 years of Con/Lib hard times. But -

    "No thank you," said the British public. "Here, have 30% of the vote."

    That explains some of it.

    Also, if the media insist on presenting a Labour leader like Ed Miliband as "Red Ed", and his policies as "Marxist", it begs an obvious question -

    Why not give them the real thing?
    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?
    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.
    This is politics from a couple of years ago, I'm afraid. Johnson had already committed to what was very likely significantly higher spending than Balls would have allowed MIliband in 2015, even before the crisis. Now we're in an either temporary or less so, different Tory phase altogether, more reminiscent of the 1950s and early 1960s.
    Ah yes, bankrupting the country then blaming it on Labour. Classic Toryism.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,206
    edited March 29

    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.

    What's wrong (or right?) with Rachel Reeves?

    If you really want to troll the Corbynists I'd rather see it go to Rachel Riley.
    There is abundant evidence that Rachel Riley can count - that's an automatic disqualification from the Labour front bench...
    Who's counting now?

    It's ironic that having dismissed the 'magic money tree' just a few years ago the Tories are now having to fell the whole bloody magic money forest!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025
    edited March 29
    Cue image of him watching a lot of people work as he sits around tweeting things.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 231

    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.

    What's wrong (or right?) with Rachel Reeves?

    If you really want to troll the Corbynists I'd rather see it go to Rachel Riley.
    Because she was part of the dreaded pre-Corbyn shadow cabinet, and thus they're convinced she loves austerity and taking away people's benefits. Here's one of them:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,035
    Off out again, lots of necessary trips out on a sunday for me :/
  • GideonWiseGideonWise Posts: 1,067
    edited March 29
    glw said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    So as Neil Ferguson says we probably need to be locked down until June, I await the screams from the media that this is too long and unsustainable (after they wanted us locked down at the start of March).

    I've thought all the way along it would be three months of lock down from March to June so wouldn't be a surprise to me.
    The Imperial College paper that lead to the change of strategy examines a three month period for mitigation strategies, with another month of social distancing for the over 70s. That's the approach we have abandoned. The path we are taking now is suppression, for which the paper models a five month period, which could be extended. Given that I'm highly confident in stating that most journalists, pundits, commentators, and even most politicians haven't bothered to read the paper, because they sure as hell do not seem to be aware of what the forecasts mean or how they are to be achieved.
    From their report 12:

    "Moreover, suppression strategies will need to be maintained in some manner until vaccines or effective treatments become available to avoid the risk of later epidemics"

    2 months on, 1 month off is what they looked at. I don't know how well that's going to go down with the public.
    The report was designed to answer the question of suppression versus mitigation. It said suppression was the only feasible policy. The bit at the end was just a quick exploratory taster for the next substantial piece of work that will need to figure out how we get out of the lockdown.

    I wouldn't be so pessimistic as them in terms of the timescales and a vaccine is not something I would want to bank on happening. Instead extensive diagnostic testing is what will get us out of this hole.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,005

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,986

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,004
    isam said:
    This graph is quite difficult to interpret, a linear decrease means what exactly? So I've looked into it a bit more.

    This plots relative growth as a function. That means if the original funtion were exponential we get a constant for the relative growth. If the original function were linear or a quadratic then the relative growth looks like a reciprocal funton.
    Here there is roughly a linear decrease. So the original function is somewhere between quadratic and exponential. Very roughly this corresponds to exponential growth but the time taken to double is slowly decreasing.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
    Id guess at least a quarter of households will have someone who wont cope with a month long lockdown. Very few will cope with a three month lockdown going into summer.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
    Look at Scandinavia, you dont need to predict from theory, it has worked there for a few decades.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,726

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
    The Lombardy lockdown started three weeks ago. We have no precedent to judge how this is going to play out. We’ve had loads of modelling about the virus will behave as a result of these measures but very little as to how humans will after any length of time. The Imperial bods admitted they had not factored that in. Hopefully someone will.
  • GideonWiseGideonWise Posts: 1,067

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
    Hopefully you have gently reminded them of their two opinions?

    Watching my neighbours today I get the sense of cabin-fever spilling out. Lots of families going for group walks, jogging etc. At some point in a few weeks those families will start bunching up and we might have a problem.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,005

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
    Look at Scandinavia, you dont need to predict from theory, it has worked there for a few decades.
    There are a number of billionaires in various Scandinavian countries. They are just less flamboyant.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
    Look at Scandinavia, you dont need to predict from theory, it has worked there for a few decades.
    There are a number of billionaires in various Scandinavian countries. They are just less flamboyant.
    Indeed. And a flourishing and happy middle class. But the poor have been "elevated".
  • johnoundlejohnoundle Posts: 120
    edited March 29
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,614
    kinabalu said:

    You've not explained why Ed who was laughed at for claiming Labour didn't spend too much was "timid".

    The manifesto. The policies offered. The way he communicated them. Always one eye on the tabloids. Treading on eggshells not to frighten either the horses or Middle England. He was timid. It was timid. Not all of the time - e.g. the incident you mention, that was admirable - but on the whole.
    The manifesto and policies offered were far to the left of the winning manifesto and policies. Just because you'd rather something more extreme does not make them "timid".
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563
    kinabalu said:

    felix said:

    Music to the ears of all of us blues. :smiley:

    Then you're not listening properly.
    Ah oh wise one I am you know. Been down this road so many many times before. Except from 1997-2010 the years all good Labour members would love to forget.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,004
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    I can't see how this will end well for India.

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6439aOtzEWs

    I'm pretty sure I said months ago that India would end up being the worst country affected by this, if it took hold there. There's way too many people for the area, millions living in shanty towns and no concept of personal space at all.
    So many other factors going against them. The state and regional governance isn't exactly known for its ability in organisation, poor education, lack of proper records of citizens.

    They have the population of China, without the might of a massive authoritarian machine that is ruthless and can be extremely efficient in directing the machinery of the state / business to do as required at the drop of a hat.
    Precisely. No matter whether we believe the Chinese numbers, China is unique in being able to take the actions they did. India has little effective governance and state security apparatus.
    India is also far far poorer than China - gdp per capita is more than 4 times higher in China, with generally poor infrastructure of all kinds, and in some parts low levels of literacy. Society is divided, with really awful Hindu nationalists in power. I'm just hoping they somehow escape a major epidemic.
    In addition the slums are literally just around the corner from everyone else in densely packed cities.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025
    edited March 29

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,005

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
    Look at Scandinavia, you dont need to predict from theory, it has worked there for a few decades.
    There are a number of billionaires in various Scandinavian countries. They are just less flamboyant.
    Indeed. And a flourishing and happy middle class. But the poor have been "elevated".
    I suggest you have a look outside the nice middle class areas of, say, Sweden.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,798
    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    From previous thread. I missed a show from my original list: This is England.

    Saw the film which was excellent. Sounds like the series is as good.

    Have you seen Top Boy?
    No - thanks for that - will start on this tonight.

    To my shame I`ve realised I`ve left Peaky Blinders off my list. Top show that.
    Make sure you watch them in order. The first series is called Top Boy Summerhouse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,496

    Stocky said:

    Has another mentioned Boardwalk Empire?

    No - well reminded. Tier Two show on my list.
    Has The Night Manager been mentioned?
    Poor, IMO.

  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    Except the money those people could never spend goes in multifarious ways into banks, businesses consumption and employment. Hardly any of it is left under the bed.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,005
    kinabalu said:

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.

    Ah the good old "Here we stand, waiting for the people".
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,474
    BBC video: "Major cities empty as lockdown measures continue"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-52081875/coronavirus-major-cities-empty-as-lockdown-measures-continue

    Can anyone spot the odd one out?
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563

    I'm personally looking forward to when SKS names Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor. The Corbynites will explode with rage, and will be convinced SKS is out to get them. You'll then see Novora Media, Skwawkbox, Rachael Swindon etc... spending vastly more time trashing Starmer than the Tories. This will be fun.

    What's wrong (or right?) with Rachel Reeves?

    If you really want to troll the Corbynists I'd rather see it go to Rachel Riley.
    There is abundant evidence that Rachel Riley can count - that's an automatic disqualification from the Labour front bench...
    Who's counting now?

    It's ironic that having dismissed the 'magic money tree' just a few years ago the Tories are now having to fell the whole bloody magic money forest!
    All about trust - no-one trusts Labour to ever stop spending - till we become Venezuela even when there is no epidemic.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,726
    edited March 29



    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.

    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
    Hopefully you have gently reminded them of their two opinions?

    Watching my neighbours today I get the sense of cabin-fever spilling out. Lots of families going for group walks, jogging etc. At some point in a few weeks those families will start bunching up and we might have a problem.
    The below, which is the final paragraph of the Imperial report, was the bit that struck me most. It is essentially saying “This is how we suppress the virus but we have no idea what the other effects of our strategy will be.”. The paper, as it says, has to inform strategy but it cannot guide it completely because it does not, as its authors themselves admit, deal with all the variables.

    Our analysis informs the evaluation of both the nature of the measures required to suppress COVID- 19 and the likely duration that these measures will need to be in place. Results in this paper have informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in the last weeks. However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.” (emphasis mine)
  • isam said:
    This graph is kind of useless.

    Daily testing was around 1500 per day in early March. Roughly tripled in mid-March, almost overnight. We've been running at 7,000 daily tests for a week or so.

    Clearly therefore there cannot be any more than 7,000 daily new infections (even though in reality there are of course far more than that number).

    More useful is the % of daily tests that are positive. Today 35%. Yesterday 36%. A week ago 12%. 3 weeks ago 3%. 4 weeks ago 0.5%

    I'd add the caveat that with rising numbers of infections, then an ever largerdaily number will be in hospital with pneumonia (a week or so after infection). And you'd assume they'd be tested.

    So even a rising positive rate doesn't completely show that infections are rising in the same proportion.

    Though I'd say it's positive that we are at the same % of positive as yesterday without any increase in testing.

    I believe the government is due to scale up testing soon, which will show more infections without infections necessarily increasing. So be wary of what the numbers actually show.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563

    kinabalu said:

    And so the whole turbulent history of the last 5 years boils down to the fact that Labour members couldn't believe the British public rejected the great god Ed Miliband, and petulantly threw their toys out of the pram as a consequence?

    I wouldn't put it that way. I would more put it as follows -

    We concluded that the received wisdom that a timid offering under a moderate leader was the way to win elections was bollocks and therefore we moved to the Left. We had to, since the alternative - a move to the right - would have put us so close to Cameron's Tories as makes no difference. It made perfect sense. What didn't make sense was the choice of the particular individual to lead us. He was not credible as a potential PM.

    So we move on. We need an electable leader and some new policies which advance our core objective - a very substantial reduction of inequality - and are compatible with whatever the post corona world looks like.

    What we do NOT do is embrace some woolly and meaningless "move back to the centre ground".
    What is this obsession with 'a very substantial reduction of inequality'? You live in Hampstead (I grew up there - it's very nice, if you ignore the neighbours). Do you really want to move to Scunthorpe - either literally or metaphorically - for the sake of some bizarre fetishistic concept of 'equality'?
    Surely it's about a small number of people accumulating more wealth than they could possibly spend in a 100 lifetimes while a large number people who are too ill to work (for example) are expected to survive on £73 per week?
    That's the theory. But I've never seen a plan to crush the billionaires and elevate the poorest that doesn't absolutely fuck the middle classes, as either an explicit or an incidental outcome.
    Look at Scandinavia, you dont need to predict from theory, it has worked there for a few decades.
    Which Scandinavian country has no millionnaires?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,964
    Sandpit said:

    So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?

    But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,254

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I'm puzzled as to what constitutes a "working majority" ?

    Wilson won a majority in October 1974 as did John Major in 1992 and David Cameron in 2015.

    Wilson lost his majority and the Labour Government under Callaghan was ultimately felled by a VoNC in early 1979. Major's Government went pretty much its full term and Cameron's Government could have gon e on until 2020 had the EU referendum not intervened.

    May had a majority (except on the not insignificant issue of Brexit) until 2017 when she threw it away.

    I'd argue both Major and Cameron won working majorities as well - Wilson arguably not (though in October 1964 he only won by 4).

    Working majority >30

    Landslide majority >99
    Says you. There's no formal definition.

    I'd say Major had a working majority in 1992 (gradually eroded and eliminated by by-elections) in that he could be confident of getting the vast majority of his business through, and winning confidence votes, without making deals outside his party (although Maastricht was plainly at considerable effort). Wilson was always shakier from 1974 and, of course, Callaghan had to enter a Lib-Lab pact in 1977.

    Equally, "landslide" is a movable feast. I'd credit Johnson with a landslide in November. Whilst "only" 80 seats, it's very hard to see him really struggling on aspects of his agenda (maybe there will be a shock somewhere, but being a whip will be a pretty easy life). This is partly because the margin over the main opposition is very big. Arguably, Blair won a landslide in 2005 with a 66 seat majority - it didn't feel like one in that he was losing quite a few seats, but it was still a big enough majority that he didn't really need to lose too much sleep before votes.
    I was following the Institute for Government parameters.
    And what are they basing it on?

    In spite of the rather pompous name, the Institute for Government is just a think tank.
    Based on things like being able to pass major budgets and Queen's Speech etc and general legislation.

    So on that basis Major's majority wasn't a working majority.
    He only had 21 iirc
    The problem was less the 21 majority than its erosion by deaths and defections. By 1996 he pretty well had no majority.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,577
    edited March 29
    kinabalu said:

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
    Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.

    And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,614
    kinabalu said:

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
    Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.

    Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc

    Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc

    You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,004


    Based on things like being able to pass major budgets and Queen's Speech etc and general legislation.

    So on that basis Majors' majority wasn't a working majority.

    The general election result did return a working majority, even on that definition, just.

    The reason why this changed was threefold:
    1) Losing by-elections, which was partly due to 2) and 3)
    2) The ERM crisis AKA Black Wednesday which was within 6 months of the election.
    3) The Maastricht Treaty. This was one single issue, albeit a big one for the Conservatives.

    "major budgets and Queen's Speech etc and general legislation." with the exception of Maastricht were being passed up to the start of 1997.


    So in terms of an election win it was a working majority, but one which was eroded to a nominal majority more quickly than could be forseen in 1992.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563
    kinabalu said:

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
    You had me at 'the Labour party does not exist' .. after that all downhill.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,798

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776

    kinabalu said:

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
    Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.

    And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
    They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563
    edited March 29
    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?

    But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
    Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,614
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
    Knowing your own limits is a critical part of understanding most people would struggle with.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,798

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
    Knowing your own limits is a critical part of understanding most people would struggle with.
    I started off by saying it's a strength of his.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,004

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
    Hopefully you have gently reminded them of their two opinions?

    Watching my neighbours today I get the sense of cabin-fever spilling out. Lots of families going for group walks, jogging etc. At some point in a few weeks those families will start bunching up and we might have a problem.
    "Lots of families going for group walks, jogging etc." If they are a household group there is no problem. It's a problem if a family lives in 2 or 3 households and they are meeting up.
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 606
    edited March 29

    When I first heard the criticisms of the delay in starting the lockdown I thought that there might be something in them and it could well be that in hindsight large gatherings should have been banned earlier. I also fell into the trap of thinking that the delay was "merely" to reduce economic and education impacts (actually valid considerations) and could be risky if they got the virus spread modelling wrong.

    Now that we are into it and facing weeks more I think the authorities are genuinely worried about how long it can hold and so tried to hit optimal timing. I'm confident in stating that most of us on this site are middle class and living in relatively comfortable and spacious housing. What about crowded flat shares, households with alcoholics and drug addicts, illegal overcrowding in urban areas, living in close proximity to somebody playing load music 24 hours a day? Couples physically seperated by chance. Add all that to the economic insecurity despite pretty good government counter measures.

    The spread of the virus is not the only thing that is exponential, so is the increase in damage to society as the length of the lockdown increases.

    For this reason I think we may get a series of a month lockdown, then a month or two off, repeated a few times to strike a balance.
    One facebook acquaintance has gone straight from demanding a LOCKDOWN NOW - to demanding the schools reopen NOW.

    Apparently a couple of days of the reality of a lockdown is too much...
    Hopefully you have gently reminded them of their two opinions?

    Watching my neighbours today I get the sense of cabin-fever spilling out. Lots of families going for group walks, jogging etc. At some point in a few weeks those families will start bunching up and we might have a problem.
    I despair. Previous generations had to cope with actual wars but, somehow, staying inside your house is proving to be just too difficult? Is it because the enemy is unseen? There's the same spread of concentrated 'action', though, whereby the vast majority had their lives changed somewhat during a war (jobs, food etc.) but the unlucky few were put in life or death situations. Thinking that 'well it's not happening here' will, however, be the death of some people, it's just that you can't hear the 'bombs'.
  • CrispyRendangCrispyRendang Posts: 21
    edited March 29
    Pulpstar said:


    If we have 1000 deaths then assuming a 1% mortality rate that is 100,000 infections. Since deaths must occur after infection and symptons appear, you can work backward - the lockdown started a week ago. If it takes 10 days to die and 11 to develop symptons then that is 21 days "inbuilt" to the system.
    If we assume doubling every 3 days pre lockdown then we've got 15 days of pre-lockdown lag to deal with on an exponential growth pattern. Say 3 days to double in this phase, that's 5 "doublings" past 100,000.

    Mean incubation is 3-5 days. Nowhere near 11.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incubation-period/

    7 days from symptoms to hospital, 14 to death.

    So roughly 18 days to death from infection.

    Huge complicating factor is that if infection is widespread, particularly in hospital, then you can be covid-19+ at death without it necessarily being the proximate cause.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,614
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
    Knowing your own limits is a critical part of understanding most people would struggle with.
    I started off by saying it's a strength of his.
    Indeed. I was agreeing with that. Its an especially rare strength in politicians.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,004
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Indeed. People who describe Red Ed as "moderate" do so in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn. Had Red Ed won then the idea of "why not give them the real thing" may have worked. But he didn't and it didn't.

    Kinabalu still hasn't come to terms with the fact that Ed was literally laughed at when he claimed Labour didn't overspend. Rather than learn the lesson, they went for Corbyn and claimed to win the argument! Labour need a leader more moderate than Red Ed.

    As I said, the gap between the Lab and Con offering in 2010 and 2015 was not wide. If Lab had then moved to the Right rather than the Left it would have all but disappeared. But I think the main problem we have here is a misconception of what the Labour Party is FOR. So we should deal with this.

    The Labour Party exists to affect a radical reduction in inequalities of income, wealth, power and opportunity. It does not exist to try and win elections on platforms that so resemble a Tory one that one may as well have a Tory one. Nor does it exist to oppose Tory governments in a manner that does not offend Tories.
    Problem is, the Tories have been moving taxation towards the wealthy and powerful. And won a big majority.

    And Labour does not appear to want to offer radical reductions in inequalities of opportunity, other than by reducing opportunities for all. It has left behind the aspirationals who want to climb higher.
    They also seem way more interested in making the rich poorer, than they do in making the poor richer.
    The Conservatives pay lip service to making the poor richer.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,025
    felix said:

    Ah oh wise one I am you know. Been down this road so many many times before. Except from 1997-2010 the years all good Labour members would love to forget.

    What road?

    Look -

    Labour have been in power for 30 of the 75 years since WW2. 1945 to 1951. 1964 to 1970. 1974 to 1979. 1997 to 2010.

    5 PMs there. Attlee. Wilson. Callaghan. Blair. Brown. Very different people. Very different politics. And so much has happened over that time. How the world has changed. How the country has changed.

    As it is changing now. Gosh, isn't it just. The virus. Brexit. A grim recession looming. So much national debt that it makes you dizzy to even think about it.

    And all people can say about Labour is they have to "move back to the centre ground" if they want to win the next GE because ... well because Tony?

    C'mon. Elevate.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,005

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
    Knowing your own limits is a critical part of understanding most people would struggle with.
    I started off by saying it's a strength of his.
    Indeed. I was agreeing with that. Its an especially rare strength in politicians.
    Its also called delegation - the cult of the leader (Blair style) who does everything himself is fundemantally ridiculous.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,563
    edited March 29

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
    Knowing your own limits is a critical part of understanding most people would struggle with.
    I started off by saying it's a strength of his.
    Indeed. I was agreeing with that. Its an especially rare strength in politicians.
    Twitter and PB are very full of critic opining on the faults and weaknesses of Boris Johnson. Their one common factor is that none of them were twice Mayors of London or PM with an 80 seat majority.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,964
    edited March 29
    felix said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    So, can Starmer move far enough to the centre ground to attract Tory voters as Blair did in '97, will the party let him have a second chance if he narrowly fails at the next election, or will he be able to groom a successor to keep out the Corbynites?

    But in seats such as Battersea and Putney quite a few people who were voting Tory in 1992 and 2010 appear to have voted Labour in 2017 and 2019 . The conventional view for years had become that due to 'gentrification' such seats would only be won by Labour in landslide years.That analysis clearly no longer holds true - a point reinforced by Labour holding Enfield Southgate in a good Tory year.
    Utter bullshit. Both Battersea and Putney have slowly trended Labour as the population has included ever higher numbers of ethnic minority groups along with much of the rest of London where it happened earlier. Battersea especially has long been a marginal seat and was never remotely a Tory stronghold in recent times. Have you never met Alf Dubs, Linton?? Even now Labour's majorities in both seats leave them much more marginal than Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Middlesborough south......
    Rubbish.The Tories gained Battersea for the first time in 1987 - having failed to do so in 1983. They then massively increased their majority there in 1992 - despite a strong pro- Labour swing in London. Putney was gained by David Mellor for the Tories in 1979 , and he increased his majority at every election up to and including 1992. Only in the 1997 Labour landslide did he lose to Labour - and Justine Greenwood regained the seat for the Tories in 2005.
    These electoral facts are readily available on the Internet - were you ever to take the trouble to seek or verify them.
    Have you ever heard of John Bowis and Jane Ellison?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,999

    isam said:
    This graph is kind of useless.

    Daily testing was around 1500 per day in early March. Roughly tripled in mid-March, almost overnight. We've been running at 7,000 daily tests for a week or so.

    Clearly therefore there cannot be any more than 7,000 daily new infections (even though in reality there are of course far more than that number).

    More useful is the % of daily tests that are positive. Today 35%. Yesterday 36%. A week ago 12%. 3 weeks ago 3%. 4 weeks ago 0.5%

    I'd add the caveat that with rising numbers of infections, then an ever largerdaily number will be in hospital with pneumonia (a week or so after infection). And you'd assume they'd be tested.

    So even a rising positive rate doesn't completely show that infections are rising in the same proportion.

    Though I'd say it's positive that we are at the same % of positive as yesterday without any increase in testing.

    I believe the government is due to scale up testing soon, which will show more infections without infections necessarily increasing. So be wary of what the numbers actually show.
    The twitter account has an agenda it is trying to push on a just-asking-questions/here-are-the-plain-numbers way.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    First do no harm. He has operated under that rule and, realising he is not up to leading, has proclaimed Chris Witty as acting PM. Which leaves him as the upbeat rallier of the troops.

    Now that is in many respects a good thing. As is the fact that Chris Witty's aim is to minimise loss of life or over burdening of the NHS.

    The public is happy that this has happened. But to think that Boris is able to understand, digest, and act upon all the information he is receiving is fanciful.
    Knowing your own limits is a critical part of understanding most people would struggle with.
    I started off by saying it's a strength of his.
    Indeed. I was agreeing with that. Its an especially rare strength in politicians.
    Very much so, and with a lot of CEOs. Knowing what you don’t know, and when to defer to subject matter experts, is a rare skill.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,458

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    Not an attack on Corbyn per se my arse :)

    That as a Cameroon big of you to acknowledge he did not get what is termed a working majority.
    Also

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of @Stocky’s list I have seen one series of Fargo and the pilot of Breaking Bad. I might catch up with some of the others after I retire.

    It's a good list. He missed out:

    The West Wing (especially for us lot)
    Southland
    Top Boy
    This Is Us
    When They See Us
    24 (if dated now)
    The West Wing is great until the end of the Bartlett campaign, everything after that is just okay.

    The Wire is probably the best TV show ever made, even if it does get a bit messy towards the end.

    Personally, I'd also recommend DS9, it's a great character drama if you can stand star trek. It's not very much like the rest of them.
    Yes the Wire is definitely the best I don't think that is contentious.

    Oh and forgot The Americans. Another excellent series.
    Yes - the Americans is superbly scripted and acted, and is as much about relationships as about spying. You do have to suspend disbelief as they go about the US killing people, since there isn’t any evidence of the KGB spies and sleepers ever having killed anyone on US soil during the Cold War.
    Well sure, but that just makes me think of a quote I came across recently from Bernard Cornwell on changing details in a historical novel, which boiled down to 'I changed [events] because fictional heroes must be given suitable employment'.
    Cameron’s achievement is better than Boris Johnson’s considering where he started as leader sub 200 MPs to PM in just over 4 years, then the first Tory majority for 23 years.
    Relatedly, I've seen a lot of anyone but Boris types in the party wonder what they were raging against recently (even before the virus got out of hand). Even I've had a moment or two thanking the maker that it's not May and Hammond in charge. I wonder if there's a way back for you?
    I was not so much an anyone but Boris as a Boris is a total tosser type.

    His admitted strength is that he realises he is way out of his depth and has delegated government to his medical advisers.

    Whether this turns out to be the best policy we shall see.
    Yes, Boris has demonstrated little leadership over this, just been swept along by events. To be fair events are moving quite quickly nowadays. He is not being a complete dick, like Trump, but that is a pretty low bar.


    The public as shown in recent polls don't agree with you.
    A rising tide floats all boats.

    Every country in the world is having a rally round the leader phenomenon at the moment.
This discussion has been closed.