|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Dec 30, 2021 6:16:36 GMT
Almost half a century ago, the Tories developed their narrative of the Arts Council wasting money on lesbian collectives nailing tampons to walls, plays by and for black people, and all their other dog whistle tropes of the era, and a very successful strategy it has proven.
It must be very galling to find themselves so regularly on the receiving end of this most useful of devices.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of bunging a Tory a few quid to do up a driveway, if it smells of duck houses it won't end well.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,639
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2021 7:59:46 GMT
EoR
Are you implying that the regime's chums haven't made a fortune , several fortunes actually, our of provisions of covid related contracts on a preferential basis.
If you are you are straight out wrong.
I spent a lot of the time in 2020 mentioning the comparison between Greece and the U.K as I spent several weeks there. I mentioned the difference between Covid rates because it was factually true. I mentioned the difference in approach then for the same reason.
During both winter's Greek covid rates have risen , primarily I suspect because what is in general an outside lifestyle in the long hot summer moves inside and there is a greater concentration of people in the large urban areas such as Attica as the transient population moves back from the islands.The delta variant is also present in a significantly higher proportion of cases than now seen in the U.K. which is likely to result in worse outcomes.
The relatively low rates of covid particularly last year also mean there are a larger percentage of the population with little acquired immunity.
While there are some similarities with the UK there are some significant distances.
The relatively low vaccine rate doesn't help either.
I am not familiar enough with current policy in Greece to comment on comparison with the UK now, but seemingly their worst outcomes have coincided with the periods when their policies are most restrictive.Not saying this is causative but its clearly happened.
Trying to offer a reasonable reply to you not sure if this is what you were actually looking for.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
|
Post by neilj on Dec 30, 2021 8:06:36 GMT
Re levelling up and the estate road, it is also used by farm traffic vehicles and other cottages on the tory Peer's estate. Such farm vehicles will include lorries and tractors. Seems to me they are much more likely to cause damage to the road than vehicles visiting the museum, but it appears the estate will pay nothing towards this work
As others have said the optics look very bad from the viewpoint of some one living in the more deprived areas of the country, who were hoping to se a fairer redistribution of assets
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 30, 2021 8:11:24 GMT
Re levelling up and the estate road, it is also used by farm traffic vehicles and other cottages on the tory Peer's estate. Such farm vehicles will include lorries and tractors. Seems to me they are much more likely to cause damage to the road than vehicles visiting the museum, but it appears the estate will pay nothing towards this work As others have said the optics look very bad from the viewpoint of some one living in the more deprived areas of the country, who were hoping to se a fairer redistribution of assets That's a good point. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 30, 2021 8:26:18 GMT
The Tory situation all feels a bit fin de siècle to me. The drip drip of stuff, however unjustified, will just play into the existing bad narrative. Stuff against Johnson was coming out last year and barely made an impact because at that stage Johnson still had a lot of loyal 2019 voters prepared to either give him the doubt or still believed in him. We can see from the polls that a lot of those red wall 2019 voters have given up the Tory vote and a lot of Tories don't like Johnson so he has a much smaller core vote. Now the tide has turned I think that 2022 will be the year when any good stuff coming out of government will be ignored by the electorate and any bad stuff just added to the balance sheet. There is no way back for Johnson I don't think. There may be a way to a reduced Tory majority in 2024 but whoever succeeds is inheriting a totally f**cked economy, the vestiges of Covid, the January and June 2022 full version of Brexit, energy bills in April and inflation. Truly a poisoned chalice.
I'm currently reading Alastair Campbell's diaries 2007 - 2010 and this situation is mirrored there in the dog days of Brown's leadership. Everyone in the government and most politicos and journalists had given up on the chance of Labour being re-elected and although nobody (even Murdoch) rated Cameron there was just a sense that he didn't have to be that good, just adequate, to beat Brown. And the combination of the Iraq war fallout, the increasingly obvious Labour infighting and dysfunctional cabinet, the 10p tax rate and MPs expenses scandal were combining to make people feel that any change would be a change for the better. And that was obvious to everyone from late 2008. Similarly, there was a reluctance on the part of members of the cabinet (David Miliband, Alan Johnson, Alastair Darling) to make a challenge and take on a poisoned chalice and a longish period as leader of the opposition.
I think that's where we will be in 2024.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 30, 2021 8:29:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 30, 2021 8:45:17 GMT
In 2014 it was reported " some Red Guards have issued public apologies to their victims," (1)-about their conduct during The Cultural Revolution in China. The same process seems to have started in The Labour Party :- "Speaking at this year’s Limmud festival, a Jewish event, the shadow foreign secretary said he “never believed” Corbyn would become leader and that his nomination was “a mistake”. “I regret nominating Jeremy Corbyn and if I knew what I do now, I never would have nominated him,” Lammy told an online audience of about 300, in comments first reported in Jewish News. “I never believed he would become leader. That was a mistake and I am sorry for that.” Guardian.  (1)npr.org As I understand it Lammy was one of the cleverdicks who thought nominating a surefire left-wing loser for the leadership would help validate whoever actually won. Staggering error, but he was hardly alone - Margaret Beckett and Frank Field have already self-criticised (to borrow your rather odd but timely analogy) and I suspect Sadiq Khan wasn't exactly on board with the project either. "Cleverdicks" is a bit unlike you, isn't it, even if you do live forever on the edge of reason!! That's an expression more usually associated with a combative and tribal old political knuckle-dragger like me.😁 I had you down as someone who normally eschewed such language and sentiment. In fairness to Lammy, Beckett et al, while they no doubt now regret enabling Corbyn to get on to the ballot paper, I think what they did had its merits. The previous Labour leadership in 2015 was skewed rightwards in terms of the political spectrum of the candidates on offer and the debate that ensued. A psycho opera between two brothers. Abbott, who was the candidate of the supposed Left, is not a political figure anyone takes seriously within the party (maybe they thought Corbyn wasn't either) and I think the Corbyn proposers thought that he might enliven the hustings and broaden the debate. He did, in fairness to him but nobody foresaw the winning bandwagon that subsequently rolled. He won fair and square, although the margin has been exaggerated somewhat, but a lot of that, in my view, was down to the lacklustre campaigning of his rival candidates. Burnham, my preferred choice, was shockingly bad. Unrecognisable from the confident and impressive politician we see today in his role as Mayor of Manchester. So, not cleverdicks, just politicians maybe now regretting a past decision that, at the time, was conceived for noble purposes. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,639
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2021 8:51:51 GMT
Crossbat
Effectively telling a significant number of workers in health care to get out of the country and don't come back before and during the pandemic because of brexitanian delusion regarding the availability of home grown workers might not go down too well either.
That does of course assume that the enquiry is given sufficiently broad range and is truly independent and isn't kicked into the long grass. Only one of which outcomes I suspect is likely.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,639
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2021 8:57:07 GMT
Crossbat
As I understand it the Labour party likes to include a candidate from the far left in its election processes for a new leader.
Because insufficient mps are actually supporters of the far left under the rules in place at the time it has been practice to" lend" votes to get the candidate on the ballot.
It was Corbyn's turn to be the left wing also ran.
Sadly events didn't go as planned
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 9:00:06 GMT
I live near Charleston House and have been to a couple of events there. It is haven for middle class and wealthy bohemian types and of virtually no interest to anyone else!! I doubt it provides much tourism to the local area as there are very few local amenities nearby. I think that's a bit dismissive and snooty . The Bloomsbury Set aren't my cup of tea either , but we have friends who go to Charleston every year from the SW.They are a small part of around 35k who do so each year. You do the maths on spending. The House is in a glorious setting under the South Downs and the nearby Berwick Church, decorated by Duncan Grant, Vanessa Bell et al , is beautiful and much visited. Having said all all that I had no idea that Firle Place was connected to Charleston -which has its own entrance off the A27. We go to Firle a lot in summer. The village, which Lord Gage owns is lovely-has that quirky vicar who did tv programmes on the Downs & their wildlife. State Funding a track from Gage's pile to Charleston begs an awful lot of questions for me. Who authorised it and why?. Just another gift for the government's critics. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Dec 30, 2021 9:01:42 GMT
Yes Corbyn was the accidental leader.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 9:03:39 GMT
As I understand it Lammy was one of the cleverdicks who thought nominating a surefire left-wing loser for the leadership would help validate whoever actually won. At a stroke you have destroyed my Cultural Revolution analogy-and confirmed my opinion of Lammy. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,639
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2021 9:04:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 9:06:12 GMT
You should know by now that Alec doesn't do good news. He's a Four Horsemen supporter. Its Three Horseman-Alec said one died. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 30, 2021 9:10:29 GMT
This is not a fridge comparison forum. Well said, and I for one would not pay nearly a thousand quid on a bloody fridge freezer! But you'd probably pay £400 each on three fridge freezers over 20+ years and £20 extra a year in electricity charges. So, over 20 years paying an extra £600 net. |
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Dec 30, 2021 9:16:26 GMT
Good sleuthing by Alec on the comparison of CV hospitalisation between single- and double- jabbed.
The greater confidence of those feeling well and not in imminent danger from local contacts, put forward by EoR as explaining the small lowering of hospitilsation incidence of the single-jabbed compared to the double-jabbed, looks plausible to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 30, 2021 9:49:57 GMT
Drivegate: Not sure if this has been commented on previously, but Firle is in the Conservative marginal of Lewes, held by Maria Caulfield over the Lib Dems with a majority less than 2,500.
We know that the government openly promises to deliver pork barrel funding in by-elections, so one would have to wonder whether this is in any way connected.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 30, 2021 9:55:09 GMT
The discussion on Charleston house reminds me that there's extraordinarily good fermented product available just to the west www.longmanbrewery.com/. Their Long Blonde is a personal favourite, discovered by chance when the son of my wife's pianist brought several cases north for the ivory plunkers significant birthday. I'm also reminded of youthful holidays at my maternal grandparents in Hailsham and riding my bike across to Bo Peep hill, just to the east of Charleston. It's a historic venue for motor hill climbing, still used annually. We revisited about 5 years ago, much more overgrown than in my memory, but the walk and views from the car park at the top are stunning. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAyetzPTVW8 |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 30, 2021 10:04:03 GMT
steamdrivenandy - "...discovered by chance when the son of my wife's pianist..." Does she have her own personal stylist too?
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 30, 2021 10:09:18 GMT
Drivegate: Not sure if this has been commented on previously, but Firle is in the Conservative marginal of Lewes, held by Maria Caulfield over the Lib Dems with a majority less than 2,500. We know that the government openly promises to deliver pork barrel funding in by-elections, so one would have to wonder whether this is in any way connected. I'd say that somehow paying for the drive to a Tory peer's public attraction doesn't quite fit with the ideal of improving the locality for residents/voters. So I'd say that even as pork barrel funding it failed both in qualifying and in achievement. It strikes me as a wheeze spotted by the estate/trust as a means of funding something they felt they needed to improve access for tourists/visitors. Hardly likely to impress the electorate of the constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 30, 2021 10:15:23 GMT
barbaraThe use of the term "fin de siecle" brings back memories from my student days. It was a favourite expression of one of my lecturers. I love a little bit if Franglais! You make an interesting point however about the natural lifespans of incumbent governments. If the Tories win another term in 2024, they'll be getting into rarefied political and electoral history. Only the 1979-1997 Tory hegemony would beat it and, if they serve a full term post 2024, we're then into breaking records territory. Accordingly, the law of averages, and the remorseless ticking of the click, is against them. As you point out, it does feel like a government rapidly running out of legs and goodwill, but they do have a large Commons majority to defend and head into an election where parliamentary arithmetic gives them a very good chance of emerging as the largest party, even if they get a bit of a going over by the electorate. But I think the opportunities for Labour now are as plentiful and fertile as they have been since 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 30, 2021 10:23:27 GMT
steamdrivenandy - "...discovered by chance when the son of my wife's pianist..." Does she have her own personal stylist too? Sadly not. The style of the fragrant one is all her own work, aided by the set of heated rollers supplied by myself a few days ago. She doesn't specialise in wearing silly hats, but does when occasions demands. Pictured on her home page is an enthusiastic conducting of a set of song from My Fair Lady in Ripon Cathedral a few years ago. voicefinder.wixsite.com/voicefinders |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Dec 30, 2021 10:40:07 GMT
@davwell - your comment on vaccine efficacy and fourth boosters brought to mind an odd discovery I made today. I found my way to the Intensive Care NationalAudit & Research Centre (ICNARC) website and their recent covid data. [See www.icnarc.org/our-audit/audits/cmp/reports downloads to the right of the page]. Was that after I mentioned it yesterday, or do you watch the john Campbell daily utube updates where he mentioned it yesterday? First off, at least most of these stats are not claiming people are in intensive care BECAUSE they have covid, but merely they are infected with it: might or might not be the cause of their admission to ICU. Some at least seem to have caught covid/tested positive after admission to ICU. The stats are collected over the course of the epidemic, so most are not specific to omicron. I really can't find a number for how many are ill because of covid rather than simply
testing positive.
50% of those in intensive care with covid are categorised as clinically obese with BMI>30. Another 30% were classified as overweight BMI>25. When Johnson said, if you want to stay safe from covid lose weight, he really meant it. It has been argued before this has contributed to worse results in the Uk than thinner nations.
10% are classed as requiring assistance with daily living. There were about 60% more men than women. 20% of the women (aged 16-49) were pregnant or pregnant within the last 6 weeks. 5% were immunocompromised, with another 5-7% classed as having a very severe co-morbidity. 1% had received CPR within the last 24 hours before admission. Typical monthly numbers admitted to ICU are 300 heart attack, 125 stroke, 1100 trauma, 500 self harm, unidentified pneumonia 1500, with covid maybe about 3000 averaging over surges in 20 and 21. (So thats covid only twice as bad as normal mystery pneumonia?)
They divide admissions across three periods, the original spring 2020, autumn/winter 20/21 and this year. Its rather interesting that the spring and kent strains produced sudden surges of ICU cases, whereas the whole delta outbreak plus the initial autumn 2020 outbreak before Kent only produced a steady slow rate of new ICU cases. This implies there was a sudden susceptibility to original and Kent, but really not to delta or the second round of the original strain after schools were reopened. This might be important, if omicron follows the delta pattern rather than kent. Peak numbers in ICU followed this same pattern, where delta had only 1/4 the peak total as Kent.
Twice as many cumulative ICU admissions per capita in London than in the SE generally. Although its possible this might reflect bed availability rather than level of illness. Its a truism who is occupying an intensive care bed depends on competition for that bed and number of said beds. Hospitals dont leave beds empty. Being in such a bed doesnt require reaching a certain severity of illness, but depends on competition for it. There seems to be a new category of critical care for covid patients which is being conducted in designated areas but outside ICU, which has been in use all through the delta outbreak this year.
As of November 2021, they report approximately 85% of the UK population was double vaccinated and 5% single vaccinated, giving rise to 50% of critical care admissions with covid. Whereas 10% of the population not vaccinated was generating the other 50% of people with covid requiring critical care. The peak age group for admissions is 60-69, so in fact it is correct the majority of people requiring intensive care who are infected with covid are both old and unvaccinated. It remains the case relatively few young people get seriously ill with covid, whether vaccinated or not. Which begs the question why people are concentrating so much on vaccinating the young (as you say, see chart 26).
I'd also note that the preponderance of males over women to be ill with covid was observed in 2020. I notice however that males are significantly more likely not to be vaccinated than are women. It follows therefore that the unvaccinated group will show a higher rate of serious covid infections than the vaccinated one because it is disproportionately male.
The proportion of hospitalised covid cases in intensive care has varied between 10% and 25%. Lowest percentages coincide with peaks of total cases, and highest percentages with fewests total cases. This might imply while the average stay in ICU is 6 days, there is a small number staying rather a long time and utilising a disproportionate number of ICU bed days.
But to address possible odd behaviour of single dose vaccination, I could think of a couple of possible reasons. The first is to do with the fact vaccination protection fades quite quickly, within three months. What happened this year since vaccinations began last christmas was that immunity rose after injection, but then faded. Given second doses are given as soon as 1 month after first dose, the gap between them isnt long enough for that immunity to fade much. There wont be many people who have just had one vaccination and never get a second, so most of them are in the higher protection period when they happen to end up in intensive care. Whereas anyone who hasnt had a booster will probably now be much longer since their last injection so immunity will have faded. Depends over what period this data was collected, and also timining between 1 and 2 has been changed over the last year.
The second would be about what sort of people end up with 0,1,2,3 vaccination. The most likely to be single vaccinated by policy are the young, who are least likely to get sick with covid. So few in this category would ever end up in intensive care for this reason.
Statistical, yes. But once you start to break it down then it becomes evident other risk factors are increasing the specific risk of certain indviduals. My best guess would be vaccination is important for people who began as high risk. Most of those have now been vaccinated because we concentrated on high risk individuals. But amongst those not vaccinated there is a mix of low risk people and some still high risk, who are disproportionately generating ICU cases. Its also likely the people in ICU who only incidentally have covid but it is not why they are there, are more likely to be the younger ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 30, 2021 10:43:08 GMT
You need to read up on the UK constitution. Please enlighten me. It's better to do your own research on first principles. It's not difficult. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 11:08:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 30, 2021 11:11:51 GMT
Drivegate: Not sure if this has been commented on previously, but Firle is in the Conservative marginal of Lewes, held by Maria Caulfield over the Lib Dems with a majority less than 2,500. We know that the government openly promises to deliver pork barrel funding in by-elections, so one would have to wonder whether this is in any way connected. I'd say that somehow paying for the drive to a Tory peer's public attraction doesn't quite fit with the ideal of improving the locality for residents/voters. So I'd say that even as pork barrel funding it failed both in qualifying and in achievement. It strikes me as a wheeze spotted by the estate/trust as a means of funding something they felt they needed to improve access for tourists/visitors. Hardly likely to impress the electorate of the constituency. It's intresting to see how this story has and is growing not necessarily in the direction of complete factual accuracy. Charleston is not owned by or connected to Lord Gage as far as I can see other than by location. The track in question does not lead to Firle Place which has its own access. The Times is reporting that beyond Charleston it does lead to a dairy farm which is part of the estate and the estate pays for that part of the track to be maintained. The grant was awarded by the Local Enterprise Partnership. It may be a deadweight grant as guymonde suggested with his facts regarding the Trust's finances and my instinct that it will be connected to corporate and individual donors. It does seem a very large grant for one organisation and for something which might be regarded as a running cost not a development cost to achieve additional benefits. It may not be a priority within Sussex but equally it is wrong to be dismissive of the importance of cultural enterprises in local economies and also wrong to assume that there is not deprivation even in somewhere like Sussex. All that said "drivegate" neatly shows the political corner the UK Government has painted itself into. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 30, 2021 11:45:12 GMT
Not really. The term 'Tory Trollop' was being widely used at the time she became the local MP. I did not invent it. I didn't say you invented it - just that you found it funny enough to post here and then when called out for being sexist tried to blame it entirely on archaic Tories who surely wouldn't have stigmatised her as the "Tory" anything. That is a 'non sequitur' because I take the view that Johnson's personal baggage DOES disqualify him from being PM. The same would apply to any other male. Personally I would not vote for any candidate at Parliamentary or Local Elections who I knew to be an adulterer or adultress. I take a similar view re -cohabitation, and always remember the stunned look of disbelief from the local Labour candidate canvassing for the local elections - circa 1996- when I informed him that I felt unable to support a candidate who openly 'lived in sin.' |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 30, 2021 12:02:55 GMT
As I understand it Lammy was one of the cleverdicks who thought nominating a surefire left-wing loser for the leadership would help validate whoever actually won. Staggering error, but he was hardly alone - Margaret Beckett and Frank Field have already self-criticised (to borrow your rather odd but timely analogy) and I suspect Sadiq Khan wasn't exactly on board with the project either. "Cleverdicks" is a bit unlike you, isn't it, even if you do live forever on the edge of reason!! That's an expression more usually associated with a combative and tribal old political knuckle-dragger like me.😁 I had you down as someone who normally eschewed such language and sentiment. In fairness to Lammy, Beckett et al, while they no doubt now regret enabling Corbyn to get on to the ballot paper, I think what they did had its merits. The previous Labour leadership in 2015 was skewed rightwards in terms of the political spectrum of the candidates on offer and the debate that ensued. A psycho opera between two brothers. Abbott, who was the candidate of the supposed Left, is not a political figure anyone takes seriously within the party (maybe they thought Corbyn wasn't either) and I think the Corbyn proposers thought that he might enliven the hustings and broaden the debate. He did, in fairness to him but nobody foresaw the winning bandwagon that subsequently rolled. He won fair and square, although the margin has been exaggerated somewhat, but a lot of that, in my view, was down to the lacklustre campaigning of his rival candidates. Burnham, my preferred choice, was shockingly bad. Unrecognisable from the confident and impressive politician we see today in his role as Mayor of Manchester. So, not cleverdicks, just politicians maybe now regretting a past decision that, at the time, was conceived for noble purposes. I believe that David Lammy is being unfair to himself on this - and the decision of himself and others - such as Margaret Beckett - to nominate Corbyn - despite having no intention of voting for him - was entirely reasonable in terms of democracy. I have always pinned the blame for Corbyn's subsequent momentum and eventual triumph on the utterly stupid decision of the then acting party leader - Harriet Harman - to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals when announced shortly after the 2015 election.This led to uproar among rank and file members which benefiited Corbyn massively as the only candidate outside the Shadow Cabinet. The other three had to go along with Harman's line - though with hindsight should have stepped down for the duration of the contest.Harman's decision was disastrous and reflected very badly on her judgement and political 'nous'.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 30, 2021 12:04:54 GMT
The Tory situation all feels a bit fin de siècle to me. The drip drip of stuff, however unjustified, will just play into the existing bad narrative. Stuff against Johnson was coming out last year and barely made an impact because at that stage Johnson still had a lot of loyal 2019 voters prepared to either give him the doubt or still believed in him. We can see from the polls that a lot of those red wall 2019 voters have given up the Tory vote and a lot of Tories don't like Johnson so he has a much smaller core vote. Now the tide has turned I think that 2022 will be the year when any good stuff coming out of government will be ignored by the electorate and any bad stuff just added to the balance sheet. There is no way back for Johnson I don't think. There may be a way to a reduced Tory majority in 2024 but whoever succeeds is inheriting a totally f**cked economy, the vestiges of Covid, the January and June 2022 full version of Brexit, energy bills in April and inflation. Truly a poisoned chalice. I'm currently reading Alastair Campbell's diaries 2007 - 2010 and this situation is mirrored there in the dog days of Brown's leadership. Everyone in the government and most politicos and journalists had given up on the chance of Labour being re-elected and although nobody (even Murdoch) rated Cameron there was just a sense that he didn't have to be that good, just adequate, to beat Brown. And the combination of the Iraq war fallout, the increasingly obvious Labour infighting and dysfunctional cabinet, the 10p tax rate and MPs expenses scandal were combining to make people feel that any change would be a change for the better. And that was obvious to everyone from late 2008. Similarly, there was a reluctance on the part of members of the cabinet (David Miliband, Alan Johnson, Alastair Darling) to make a challenge and take on a poisoned chalice and a longish period as leader of the opposition. I think that's where we will be in 2024. Hi - I remember Gordon Brown being interviewed ( I think by Riz Lateef) for BBC London in 2010, and her disdain and lack of respect for him (despite him being PM) was palpable. I thought at the time that news presenters seemed to be treating Cameron as the second coming and Brown as if he was a socially inept misfit who had no right to be PM. Hopefully you are right, and the end is in sight for these long dark days of rule by our merciless Tory overlords. Assuming an election is in '24, that's still a long way off and one should never underestimate the Tories ability to throw failing leaders under the bus and re-invent/re-position themselves with the support of their press-buddies. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 30, 2021 12:05:57 GMT
I didn't say you invented it - just that you found it funny enough to post here and then when called out for being sexist tried to blame it entirely on archaic Tories who surely wouldn't have stigmatised her as the "Tory" anything. That is a 'non sequitur' because I take the view that Johnson's personal baggage DOES disqualify him from being PM. The same would apply to any other male. Personally I would not vote for any candidate at Parliamentary or Local Elections who I knew to be an adulterer or adultress. I take a similar view re -cohabitation, and always remember the stunned look of disbelief from the local Labour candidate canvassing for the local elections - circa 1996- when I informed him that I felt unable to support a candidate who openly 'lived in sin.' How very Victorian of you!  |
|
