BS: Brexit & other UK political topics

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 21 - 08:16 PM

I can't stand the woman. Another anticorbynite. A born loser for Labour. I'll watch it tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Jul 21 - 08:09 PM

BBC Hardtalk interview Jess Phillips


?????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 05:17 AM

Not so much London Centric, but more London Elite (+the shires) centric. London is probably the most economically and socially dividied part of the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 04:35 AM

Good post, pete, and it chimes for me with what I was saying about Labour's rigidly ideological position with regard to greater autonomy/independence for Scotland. As I said, whether one agrees with the push for independence or not, there is a serious argument to be made for it, and failure to embrace that discussion in a constructive way was/still is a great way of alienating Scottish voters. Even here in Cornwall we are irritated by the blatantly London-centric UK political system.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 04:27 AM

My sister met John Crace a couple of years ago when she was President of the NAHT. She's never stopped telling us what a very nice and very funny man he is. I loved his Digested Reads...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 03:48 AM

Talking of reading: I have never read "The Fountainhead", though I have read extracts and reviews, most of which think it is philosophically feeble and, from the point of view of pure literature, very poorly written. The extracts I have read make me inclined to agree. But given it seems to have so many fans in government, I suppose I will have to get around to it and after all many influential books are not great page turners.

Anyone else read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 03:29 AM

for the snp their opposition to the tories is unchanging and resolute. labour lost much of its support there as they are seen as 'in bed with the tories' and more likely to co-operate with them in sniping at the scottish government. were labour to offer a clearer opposition to tory rule and adopt some snp policies in england (elderly care, student fees, trident etc) then the need for scottish independence would decline and if they offered a proper partnership and more autonomy to scotland then it should not be beyond the wit of reasonable people to work for their mutual benefit. however, ignoring scotland, patronising them or cheating them yet again will prolong the agony for labour and give the call for independence another boost. a half decent, consensual, yet solidly anti-tory westminster government is what is needed both sides the tweed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jul 21 - 02:57 AM

I confess to doing so. I would like you to take reading John Crace into account when deciding on your sentence.

Though his column is only occasional, David Mitchell is always worth a read as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 08:30 PM

...And I've just spotted irrefutable evidence that you, too, DMcG, read Marina Hyde... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 11:02 AM

So what about the animal sentience case

I haven't really followed it, to be honest, but my limited understanding is that it is not really about whether animals are sentient or not in actuality - which is essentially a scientific and philosophical question - but about exactly which existing laws apply to which animals. So an animal could be legally "not sentient" while passing some scientific tests, or vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 10:06 AM

So what about the animal sentience case?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 07:21 AM

And so you shouldn't regret it. You broke an unfeeling rule but acted like a decent human being. The most difficult thing for me was my mum in a home just ten minutes from me. Naturally, the setup didn't allow me to break any rules and the home was very caring and allowed me visit her (through a Perspex screen at the appropriate distance) every week or so. Very tough, as she was profoundly deaf, and with my face shield in place we found it next to impossible to converse. In the end I resorted to a portable whiteboard. It was awful but every day I read about much worse cases in homes apparently not being run by normal humans. Before that I'd been round to her room four or five times a week. She died (not of the virus) at the end of October. The hospital broke the rules (no pressure at all from us) to let us be with her at the end. I can't complain about tight rules in hospitals and care homes, I hasten to add. But masks, rules of six, bubbles and the rest should always have been matters for our own judgement, and the government's job should have been to inform, advise and guide. Too many edicts and nowhere near enough of that (and don't get me started on mixed messages). Ironically, the sudden lifting of all restrictions on one day almost feels like an edict in itself. The government will find it all the easier to get us to comply with orders next time around, and that, to me, would be a very worrying development.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 06:25 AM

Well I've behaved responsibly since the first lockdown and haven't broken a single rule.

I can't say the same. I have deliberately broken a rule fairly early on. Just the once, but I would do it again.

My nephew and his wife had their first child during covid. He was not allowed to be present at the birth and she was sent home after a very short time. Once at home, they had no form of support at all. No visits from midwives or nurses, no friends calling round, no doting grandparents to lend a hand.    After around six weeks of total isolation, with no help beyond zoom calls and the inevitable baby crying at all hours of the night, they were near collapse, and rang us. We went round (about 30min drive) and took the baby out for a few hours.

I don't regret that at all. If we were to get fined for it, I would pay happily.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 05:59 AM

Vaccine-refusers are the people who really should be getting it in the neck from the rest of us.

I broadly agree. We have to remember that the benefits of the vaccine is far less clear cut for with those with a compromised immune system, of course, but otherwise I don't have much sympathy with refusers.

But it gets down to the same issue as masks, surely? I accept you should not be legislating to enforce vaccination, but to what extent should you be able to refuse services to people who will not? There are interesting notices from cruise companies, some of whom are requiring all passengers to be double vaccinated before boarding and some are not. That's a specific example of a general problem. They are trying to find the set of rules that maximises their custom as every pub and restaurant and theatre will also be trying to do.

The individual liberty versus general social benefit balance is rarely a simple one.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 05:35 AM

The SARS coronavirus died out on its own without a vaccine. From the virus's
point of view, it failed because it wasn't infectious enough. Getting everyone vaccinated is the only way I can see of making life equally difficult for this virus. Children and young people are a big issue with the current virus. You can explain things to 14-year-olds and try to persuade them to be vaccinated. We have to make sure that any dangers of the vaccines are significantly outweighed by the benefits. It isn't easy, as young people rarely suffer significantly from the virus. Even younger children are a much bigger issue because they are not competent to decide for themselves and the risk-benefit balance is much more precarious (although we do vaccinate them against several childhood disease without demur). Reducing spreading from children is a key issue and I wouldn't mind betting that the science is straining to establish the safety of vaccines for children. My sister is the head of an infant school. Each year they are offered a flu vaccine (via their parents, of course) which is administered via a puff up the nose. It's done in a fun way and the uptake is around 98%. We have to be thinking outside the box. It's going to be all about the vaccines from now on. I'm criticised for squabbling about masks, yet I have never broken the rule. Vaccine-refusers are the people who really should be getting it in the neck from the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 04:20 AM

20,000 people died of flu in the winter of 2017-2018 but no laws were imposed telling us to wear masks or stay at home not mixing. Each year the flu vaccine is formulated using the best predictions of which strain(s) will predominate. Successful predictions will greatly help to reduce flu deaths. Different strains of flu viruses come from overseas as well as from within but no-one has ever suggested closing our borders every winter. Flu is a dodgy customer to deal with. We have to live with these things and try to live normal lives. Every winter there is a fairly effective campaign to inform people about flu and encourage targeted groups to get the vaccine. That is the right way to go. Information, advice and recommendations, plenty of publicity. But no coercion. This is our country, not the government's country. If we don't drop this now then maybe we never will. Compliance with the rules has been so high for so long that people's fears of catching the disease and becoming seriously ill are now exaggerated and lots of people are getting stressed about future mixing with unmasked people. Ninety-nine people out of a hundred you see with a mask on are doing nothing to stop the spread because they are not infected, so ninety-nine people out of a hundred you'll see unmasked will be doing you no harm. The fact that there is a law, not just advice, forcing those people to wear a mask is an outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 02:55 AM

I agree, Jos, that the evidence we will have a higher flu level this winter seems rather weak. I suspect a lot of it from 'armchair experts' is based on the idea of 'reverting to the mean': if you have a long term mean for something, and then an exceptionally low year, you will only revert to the mean if a compensating high value arrives.    That argument is more than a little dubious.

A stronger argument arises because illnesses like flu are broadly exponential in terms of infection. It does not matter greatly how low the starting number of infections is because after a short time the exponential effect dominates. Of course, in practice it is far more complex than a simple exponential, because it depends on encounters with susceptible people. As a result all infection curves are more 'S' shaped than a simple exponential, but in the early stages an exponential growth is a good enough model. It may well be that the experts think the low number of cases last winter together with less restrictions on meeting people will mean the number of encounters between infected people and susceptible people is far higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 02:23 AM

I should add I do not expect as many deaths as even the "optimistic considered", because if we begin to approach that figure, some of the restrictions will be re-introduced. The model assumes they are not.

I will repeat what I think the most valid criticism of my putting that extract into the thread is, which is the one I made of myself: I have not yet read the paper in its entirety. What happened was that I noticed Whitty said the number of hospitalisations and deaths had been modelled and that the model would be published. So I thought it worth trying to find that and then do a quick scan for what it estimated the number of deaths to be. Hence the extract.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Jos
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 02:18 AM

Supposedly, a combination of staying at home when possible, social distancing, masks and vaccines have caused a reduction in cases of, and deaths from, COVID-19.
Often in the same broadcasts that offer this information, I hear 'experts' on the radio saying that because there were so few cases of flu last winter (as a result of the staying at home, social distancing, vaccinations, masks) it is expected that there will be many more cases of flu next winter.
I don't understand why this would happen. Fewer cases of flu last winter should mean fewer people carrying the infection and therefore fewer people passing it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 21 - 02:05 AM

All modelling is limited and error prone, I agree. That is why I started off by saying "the model estimates": it is an estimation, not a certainty, by any means. 'The most optimistic considered' is standard scientific/mathematical jargon. They calculated the range for things like R values using the best available data and the best available analysis. If they used the lowest value for R they get the most optimistic considered, and the high end of the range you get the most pessimistic considered.   Of course, it is possible the R is lower that the low end of the range: it is possible it magically becomes 0. Nevertheless, on all available knowledge and testing and analysis it will not be lower than that used. Equally, it is possible R is higher, but they only considered the high end of the range of the analysis.

People are free to talk about anything they like and to disregard the model if they wish.   Johnson certainly seems be behaving as if he is. The hot topic of the day may well be masks, and opening nightclubs and all the rest.   But the warnings of the costs are published on the governments web site. Not talking about them does not mean the warnings are not there.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 08:49 PM

Alleluja, Nigel.   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 08:46 PM

DMcG: I read your post, but pick out a clause which you may have decided to disregard:
In the most optimistic scenario considered (low immune escape and 150% increased transmissibility, and central R after NPI lifting), an additional 26,854 (95% CrI: 11,639, 54,990) deaths could occur by 1 June 2022, with a wave of hospitalisations similar in magnitude to the last wave. In the most pessimistic scenario considered (high immune escape and 170% increased transmissibility), additional deaths could reach 136,377 (95% CrI: 94,307, 189,456). Should transmissibility after Step 4 be higher, there could be up to 203,824 (95% CrI: 179,600, 241,116) additional deaths by 1 June 2022
So maybe 26,854 deaths, in the middle path. But maybe 203,824 if it is more transmissible.

The most optimistic 'considered'. Up until now we have been deluged with future projections, and almost without fail things have turned out 'better' than expected by the scientists. Or at least 'better' than the projections that have been used to frighten the public. The 'most optimistic considered' is not necessarily the most optimistic available.

I hope that when announcements are made for Wales (14 July) we also drop all, or most of, the restrictions we're currently living under.
The fact that it may then be permitted to drink standing up in pubs, without needing masks or 'social distancing', does not mean that the public will be herded into pubs by police with cattle prods. People will be permitted to make their own decisions about how and where they feel safe, and what, if any, further protective action they wish to take. The fact that face masks and hand sanitiser will no longer be mandatory should not be taken as meaning that they're banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 08:32 PM

I am seventy years old. Since I was a little boy I have suffered from trouble with painful sinuses and a blocked-up nose. I am well short of being able to claim that I should be exempt from mask-wearing and I would never dream of doing so. I am an extremely obedient mask wearer. I feel very strongly that this government has had no moral right to insist that I wear something over half my face for the past year. It is not possible to demonstrate that mask-wearing is beneficial in stopping the spread of the virus. A controlled-experiment style trial is impossible, and any "science" behind such claims is predicated on and limited to the kinds of observation that necessarily preclude considerations of confounding factors. Yet we are enduring an ethos of mask-wearing-is-the-moral-thing-to-do, and we have had it imposed on us, quite improperly in my view, by government edict. One in a hundred people may be infected, but we are telling the other 99, who threaten nobody, that they MUST wear a mask. Infected people, even if they're wearing masks, are a threat to everyone, but the other 99 are a threat to no-one. Well I've behaved responsibly since the first lockdown and haven't broken a single rule. But I want to CHOOSE whether to wear a mask or not and I want to hear the government giving information, advice and guidance only. No more edicts. I respect the wishes of people who want to wear masks and I would wear a mask rather than make anyone feel vulnerable if we were unavoidably very close to each other. But we drop this now or else we'll be wearing masks for at least another year. And then we'll get the same arguments all over again and it'll be another year, and another... This is the right time in my view. And you chose entirely the wrong word when you accused me of taking pleasure. Blessed relief would be accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 07:56 PM

Yes I read your post but I wasn't responding at all to its substance but was glad to use it as an opportunity to latch onto today's hot UK topic. That's all right, isn't it? The model extrapolates a long time into the future, describes several wildly different outcomes all based on suppositions that are currently little more than guesswork regarding variant(s) and produce spuriously accurate outcome numbers. Oh, and likely ignores confounding factors, such as the unpredictable changes in human behaviour in the months to come. Good luck with that. I'm a sceptic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 07:09 PM

So the modelling estimates 26,854 deaths optimistically and 203,824 deaths pessimistically and your response is pleasure you don't have to wear a mask?

I will assume you did not read my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 06:11 PM

I will take a mask everywhere I go but I hope I won't have to use it. I won't put it on just because some mask aficionado wants to give me an argument. I won't put it on in Morrison's unless the company has a policy insisting on it (and for months I've been trying hard to avoid busy shopping times). I sanitise my hands before and after each shop visit without fail. I sanitise my hands again, as well as my car keys, every time I get back into my car. There's hardly any public transport round here so that doesn't apply. I'm not planning to go to a pub, theatre, cinema or football stadium any time soon. I'm used to keeping my distance without having to think about it. I've had both jabs. If I put on a mask and I think I haven't got the disease, the mask is a waste of time though I wouldn't know that. If I put the mask on and I have got the disease, then the first breath I take into that mask turns it into a dangerous, insanitary object that I'm sure to touch with my fingers several times while I'm wearing it. If I don't feel well I won't be going out. I'm not a COVID-denier and I'm not a mask rebel, but I hate the bloody things, think they are next to useless or worse and will be glad to see the back of them. So I welcome today's announcement and I hope he sticks to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 05:20 PM

Meanwhile...

I still have to read through the entire document on the.modelling for step 4, but here is a paragraph to entertain:

f all but baseline NPIs are released on 21 June 2021 (Table 4), and assuming central immune escape and 165% increased transmissibility for B.1.617.2 (and central R after NPI lifting), our results suggest a third wave with an additional 59,180 (95% CrI: 33,140, 101,218) deaths could occur by 1 June 2022 (Table 5), with a peak in hospital bed occupancy about twice as high as that from early 2021 (Figure 7). Results are very sensitive to the assumed levels of transmissibility and immune escape for B.1.617.2. In the most optimistic scenario considered (low immune escape and 150% increased transmissibility, and central R after NPI lifting), an additional 26,854 (95% CrI: 11,639, 54,990) deaths could occur by 1 June 2022, with a wave of hospitalisations similar in magnitude to the last wave. In the most pessimistic scenario considered (high immune escape and 170% increased transmissibility), additional deaths could reach 136,377 (95% CrI: 94,307, 189,456). Should transmissibility after Step 4 be higher, there could be up to 203,824 (95% CrI: 179,600, 241,116) additional deaths by 1 June 2022

So maybe 26,854 deaths, in the middle path. But maybe 203,824 if it is more transmissible.

Ending restrictions is so.obvious, isn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 05:10 PM

Ah, "how to 'wider interests'
Our ain we sacrifice,
And yet tine naethin by it..."

(Hugh MacDiarmid, "The Parrot Cry").

How often so many Scots voters continue to repeat the same mistake in the hope of getting a different result. How long before the observation attributed to Einstein becomes inescapably relevant?

ABCD.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 02:50 PM

.. until we construct an estuary barrage defence to keep Cornish migrants out...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 02:30 PM

.. now then, about the Wessex and Cornish independence movements..

You'll be stuck right at the arse end of the island..

While we can impose border controls on whether we let you in..

Remember our navy will control the Bristol channel...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 02:25 PM

Steve - fair enough, we have to accept that Labour have blown their prospects of ever regaining votes in Scotland..

We all seem to agree on that...???

The problem is, we are being asked to rely on the SNPs role in any progressive alliance to stand up to tory majority domination.
When we know the SNP will jump ship at the earliest opportunity.
Leaving the rest of the UK with substantially weakened defences..

The SNP are not exactly best mates we can ever depend on in the long term...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 01:03 PM

Well I'm no fan of SNP politicians, but I'm a great believer in self-determination for our smaller countries (and even some regions) that are routinely sidelined by our London-centric system of government. It makes me sad to think that Labour is so rigidly - ideologically - against Scottish independence. At the very least there is a good argument to be made for it. Yes, Scotland was for many years a Labour heartland. But it's my view that Labour lost that rather than the SNP winning it, and the obduracy concerning greater self-determination for Scotland was a big part of it. The landscape has changed and I can't see Labour making massive inroads in Scotland any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 11:14 AM

Fancy words - but the SNP are basically selfish,
and don't care a toss about deserting and letting down their English and Welsh mates...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 10:58 AM

Well we are talking in the here and now and in the here and now Scotland is a part of the UK. Beides I am not arguing that Labour need the SNP to gain power. What I am saying is as we are at the moment a majority SNP in Scottish Westminster seats is no barrier to a Labour gvt. For a Labour gvt to happen though then England is going to need to vote for it - or at the very least the vote would need to be extremely close in England for Scottish members to make any difference. That is just a plain fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 10:37 AM

But how would a leftist SNP be any use at all
in keeping the tories out of power,
if you ever win full inependence...!!!

Yeah.. very dependable mates...

Like if my next door neighbour promises to back me in a fight against the town bullies,
then as soon as possible fucks off abroad leaving me in the lurch...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 10:09 AM

Re when I was talking about working on a case by case basis I was not meaning electoral pacts or not standing in seats etc. Scottish politicians are well used to now running with minority gvts. The SNP have never been in a coalition. There is some talk that there might be one shortly in Holyrood but that would be the first time. They generally seek support from other parties on an issue by issue basis. If they haven't got the votes to get a measure through then so be it. Sturgeon said several times she had no interest in going into a Westminster coalition with Labour but would look to work with them on a case by case basis. Hence Scottish SNP MPs are not a major barrier to a Labour gvt.

As to 1979. Heavens that was 42 years ago and a different time with different leaders and different issues and quite frankly a completely different SNP. It was before they swung to the left and those advocating a swing to the left (the 79 Group) were soon afterwards expelled from the party and that included Salmond. Yes along with the Lib Dems they brought down Labour but that was on the back of them viewing Labour as betraying the Scottish elecorate in regard to the devolution referendum. However to compare what Gordon Wilson chose to do in 1979 with what Sturgeon would likely do now is nonsense. She has repeatedly said she would never keep a UK Tory gvt in power.

Likwise the idea that Thatcher benefited because of Scottish voters turning to the SNP is just plain and simply not true in the least. The SNP's share of the vote in 1979 (Thatcher's first election victory) dropped by 13% from 1974 and they only returned 2 MPs as opposed to Labour's 44 Scottish MPs. In 1983 it dropped by a further 5.5% though they retained their 2 seats as opposed to Labour's 41 MPs. In 1987 their vote recovered slightly but still only gave them 3 seats as opposed to Labour's 50 Scottish MPs. 1992 saw them get 21.5% of the vote which was up on 1979s 17.3% but still well below the 1974 number but they were still left with only 3 seats compared with Labour's 49. Labour was by far the dominant party in Scotland throughout the Thatcher years and beyond.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 09:40 AM

Does the sentience thing belong in this thread?I find it fascinating.

British parliament is debating whether [some] animals are sentient.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Rain Dog
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 09:33 AM

Is Tom Blackburn able to give us the lottery results for the next draw?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 09:02 AM

An extract from the article What Labour's Batley and Spen Victory means for the Party's left (Tom Blackburn in the Guardian):

Those hoping that this byelection result will pour oil on troubled waters and bring an end to Labour’s factional infighting are likely to be sorely disappointed, however. On the contrary, the party’s right wing will most likely take the win in Batley and Spen as a green light to step up its factional war on the left. Sources close to Starmer have already started issuing thinly veiled threats of vengeance against Rayner, as well.

Just last week, some of Starmer’s allies were suggesting he should make do with being another Neil Kinnock; in other words, give up on any hopes he might have had of becoming prime minister and instead settle scores with the Labour left on their behalf. In particular, this means ensuring that the left is never again in a position to win the party leadership, specifically by changing the rules for future leadership elections.

There will therefore be pressure on Starmer to capitalise on the win in Batley and Spen by further marginalising the Labour left, deterring future leadership challenges from this quarter and possibly clearing the way for a shift in policy direction. Starmer won the Labour leadership promising to bring about unity and a decisive end to its years of exhausting internecine strife, precisely what party members wanted to hear. But just over a year on, it remains as divided as ever.

To this end, there is speculation that Starmer and his backers are planning to return to the old electoral college system. This would give the parliamentary Labour party – where the left accounts for only a fairly small minority – a disproportionate share of the vote, presumably making it all but impossible for the Labour left to win again. This is despite the fact that it was actually the Blairite right that successfully badgered Ed Miliband into introducing “one member, one vote” in the first place, in what transpired to be a calamitous miscalculation.

Well it doesn't look promising, does it? No accommodation or compromises, just an eye to marginalisation. Not the way to stop the infighting, but Starmer hasn't got the vision to see that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 07:04 AM

it's always been politically useful to the tories to have a tory-lite friendly group of stooges who appear to give a centrist balance. along with the labour right, all major political voices have united to attempt to isolate progressive ideas and isolate the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 06:54 AM

yes i used to reckon that shirley w was a decent politician but then came the coalition's disastrous health reforms. as i recall, as a 'conscience' politician she took a day or 2 decide but then, inevitably for a liberal, came down on the tory side of the debate. final decider for me of whether to ever trust any of them again.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 06:21 AM

They didn't exactly help. A big part of their message was very much anti-Labour left. All that nonsensical guff recently about Shirley Williams being a woman of honour and integrity made me squirm.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 05:07 AM

So kind of the SDP to keep the Conservatives in power. But,
Before the SDP was created the Conservatives were in government with a majority of 43.
After the SDP dissolved in 1988 the Conservatives won a general election in 1992 with a majority of 21.

Margaret Thatcher may have had the benefit of a larger majority because of Labour voters turning to the SDP, but that doesn't seem to have been necessary to keep power.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 04:33 AM

That's true, but anyone who is labouring under the illusion that Labour could ever again (at least in my lifetime) get a majority double the current Tory one (which is what Blair did twice), which would need bags of Scottish seats (as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle), is whistling in the dark. The landscape has changed irrevocably. I'm all for informal case-by-case alliances, but the plain fact is that anything formal can only work if no party has an overall majority, and, as I said, I want it to be my choice to vote tactically or not. If Labour declines to put up a candidate in North Cornwall in an attempt to get a LibDem elected, I would feel disenfranchised and I would leave the party. I see the LibDems as a despicable bunch of unprincipled, lightweight opportunists. And last time that smaller party threw their hat in the ring with the Tories they were punished almost to extinction in the next election. For me that was the only highlight of the 2015 election. And let's not forget what happened to the SDP. No-vision chancers who helped to keep Thatcher in power. One day Labour will win again. The party was a basket case in the mid-80s and twelve years later got in with a massive majority. Who'd have thought it (or is that me whistling in the dark...). We play to win and we must do it on our own. In m'humble, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 02:48 AM

Plus of course the maths means if the majority of Scottish MPs are not Labour then it is harder to get a majority. That is obvious. However the demographics are that for the Scottish MPs to actually make any difference numerically the result needs to be incredibly tight in England itself. All the Blair and Brown gvts still had a majority of seats even if you disregard the Scottish MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 02:41 AM

In reality the domination of the SNP in Scotland is only a really serious disadvantage to Labour at Westminster as long as Labour declines to contemplate working even informally with other parties and sticks to the flawed idea that you must have a majority in parliament. The SNP members sent to Westminster are in essence an anti-Tory block of votes. The SNP have said on various occasions that they would vote with Labour on a case by case basis - and in most instances they would be very unlikely to vote with the Tory opposition against Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Jul 21 - 12:38 AM

I am a bit concerned with the accounts of the new NHS bill coming before Parliament. We will have to see the detail, but it seems to include a lot of powers for the minister to override local health decisions, which I find problematical.

A quick recap: go back far enough and the NHS was wholly under the responsibility of the Department of Health. This made the minister ultimately responsible for the decisions taken. This was then re-organised into "arm's length" bodies, which had strengths and weaknesses. The minister was less accountable, but it opened the way for more specialist and dedicated management.

It appears the new proposal combines the worst of those features. The accountability remains with the arm's length groups but the new powers will allow a minister to swoop in, override a decision about contracts, or opening and closing hospitals and so on, then fly out again.

I think we can take it as read the minister is unlikely to demand the closure of a hospital against the local advice. Why would they court such flak?   On the other hand, if a local authority has a budget problem and decides the only choices are to cut services everywhere or close a local hospital, there will – as always – be a local protest and the minister can turn up, declare the hospital stays, collect all the popularity and disappear again, forcing the local health bodies to cut the services as their only other way of balancing the books.

It looks as if the minister can act with no knowledge of the local circumstances, then leave without suffering any of the consequences, leaving others to sort any mess arising.

Again, the minister can force through contracts, overriding local decisions. If that is not another PPE jobs-for-chums scandal in the making, I don’t know what is.

I also mentioned that the current structure was introduced to enable management by highly skilled and dedicated people as one of its strengths. Dido Harding? She still seems to be in the running.

All in all, the proposals as reported so far sound potentially quite damaging for the NHS.   But we will see shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 21 - 02:46 PM

Er, I wasn't blaming Scotland, Nigel, and I tried to make that clear. But Labour once held dozens of seats in Scotland which are now well beyond its reach. That makes it incredibly difficult for Labour to get an overall majority. That's life, and no blaming of voters is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Jul 21 - 02:23 PM

We're going to ranked choice voting in Alaska. That makes tactical (strategic?) voting normative.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 04 Jul 21 - 12:26 PM

an inspired idea, pfr. they have seamlessly absorbed ukip types and in many cases (see workington) elected thugs and eejits to parliament. they have kicked out any brains and tories have no time for boring meetings and adhering to points of order, whereas we have many years of practice - a couple of years of pretending, undercover resistance, backhanders and rotten borough council seats and we would easily take the power. might take a bit of explaining to the family mind.....