8-Dec-2021 : LAB: 40 / CON: 34 / LDEM: 10 / GRN: 4

[barbara]

Dec 21, 2021 23:58:51 GMT graham said:

Dec 21, 2021 23:51:00 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

@ graham

In 1967 Barbara Castle was a leading member of the Labour Government - and was widely spoken of as the likely first woman Prime Minister in the UK. Alas that did not happen - but in 1968 she became Employment Secretary and introduced the Equal Pay legislation in the years immediately following.

And she was truly exceptional, and had to be to get to where she did. She was one of only 26 wome MPs at that time. Today we have 223 women MPs, with Priti Patel and Liz Truss, which shows us that now it is possible for women to be just as inept and mediocre as men and get into high office. Progress of a sort!

In academic terms she was far from being exceptional - a Third class honours degree hardly placed her in the same league as Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins, Anthony Crosland, Richard Crossman and quite a few others.

I think academic cleverness is only one aspect of being exceptional. Qualities such as determination, perseverence, practical problem solving, persuasion, likeability made Barbara Castle both a formidable Cabinet Minister and Tory opponent than many other members of the Labour Party in parliament in that time. She was also fighting quite significant sexism as well ( although to be fair she wasn't above using her sexuality as another tool in her kit). These are all the same qualities (including using her sexuality) that made Margaret Thatcher the success that she was. These political titans have now been replaced by the mediocre entitled nonenties such as Cameron, Johnson, Osborne and Rees Mogg, who, had they been born in a relatively modest home in the North of England would have struggled to hold down a job in the local mill.

[neilj]

It was not that long ago people were saying 40% seemed to be the floor for Conservative support. Recently we have seen polling for Conservatives of 32, 31 and even 30%

So my question is whether 30 is the new 40?

[alec]

steve - "It's actually rather more likely given the pathology of previous coronavirus that it will change into something better."

Evidence?

The experts I read have consistently said that viruses can become milder, or they can become more severe. In the case of covid, there is no evolutionary pressure on it either way (it infects others before symptoms in the host become critical) so you are just being senselessly optimistic that random good things may happen.


As it happens, long term, I'm rather optimistic about this, when we look 1 - 2 years out, and possibly much sooner. We are beginning to overcome Big Pharmas obsession with tightly focused booster jabs, which are extremely good for Big Pharma profits, not very good at bringing the pandemic to an end. There is now a developing groundswell of research into potentially much better vaccines (nasal sprays, skin patches) and critically, these are increasingly focusing on wide spectrum approaches, with talk of a single flu/coronavirus snort which can cover multiple coronaviruses all in one. Pfizer and Moderna in particular have been very sniffy about that (ha!) for obvious reasons.

There is mounting hope that these will provide a far better level of protection than conventional jabs, which will persist much longer, and we are now seeing the first positive data coming from early stage trials. I actually think we may well emerge from this with the ability to control flu and other emerging coronavirus threats, for the first time in human history.

So I'm very optimistic right now, but for the future. This next few weeks look rather grim.

[Danny]

Dec 22, 2021 0:39:04 GMT eor said:

Your description of the data is stretched beyond recognition - to take just one example, there was a precipitous increase in UK cases that started around mid December 2020. Deaths didn't rise at all until into January, whereupon they accelerated a week or two in to reflect the dramatic rise in cases several weeks before.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Put another way, given that no-one has suggested that it's remotely typical for people to catch COVID and die of it a week later, what makes you think that this minimal time lag you've found makes any sense?

Lets compare UK government data on cases and deaths. Considering the smoothed 1 week average results, because there is a problem with day by day variation. eg the dashboard pages for Uk cases and Uk deaths. coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom
coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom

Take for example on the cases page the peak which occurred 3 jan 2021. Then look at the deaths plot and see the corresponding peak, which occurred approx 18 Jan. Or the dip in cases about 28 Nov, and corresponding dip in deaths about 3 dec. Peak 10 Nov in cases, peak deaths 22 Nov The curves agree in form quite well with deaths, lagging 1-2 weeks behind reported cases. Obviously some people stay in hospital a very long time and there is a certain buildup up of people occupying beds a very long time. But most people die within a couple of weeks of being reported as a case, if they are going to.

Of course we dont know how many of these deaths are fake covid deaths, ie people sick with something else who were admitted to hospital and died from it within 28 days (for example heart attack or end stage cancer). I assume anyone actually in hospital ill with covid would have repeat covid tests, and so would never fall out of the 28 day window however long they were there before dying. If these figures are badly corrupted by including people who have covid but arent really ill with covid...well that rather undermines the whole government policy.

This comparison is also very instructive in demonstrating how tiny the total of deaths has been in the delta outbreak compared to kent strain.  So we can anticipate omicron will be even lower?

The original outbreak hardly appears on this plot of cases because the amount of testing performed spring 2020 was negligible compared to now, so cases recorded was also a negligible fraction of the real total. Zoe got 2.2 million concurrent cases April 2020, twice as many as now. Its interesting that for so many cases then and truly hospitals bursting with cases then, actually the deaths outcome was rather better. Maybe that suggests there were a lot fewer fake covid deaths then because the hospitals simply had a lower proportion of non covid cases whose deaths were getting tallied as covid ones. Or it really illustrates how strong the link is between being tested and becoming a fake death either by dying within 28 days, or on your deaths certificate noting you had it (or even noting you tested negative, which government count as a suspected covid death because they thought it ight be so did a test), This might imply deaths are being severely over counted now.

[alec]

Sunak's intervention in the hospitality sector really is starting to look threadbare this morning. Low tax, low spend penny pinching at it's finest.

Just heard an interview with a hotel chain owner that said the £6000 per venue is not much use when your business rates are £250,000 a month. Most venues are smaller, so won't get the full amount, with £2,500 being the more normal figure - perhaps one nights takings for a pre Christmas do for a small venue?

I suspect part of the reasoning for not introducing mandatory curbs is Sunak's unwillingness to cough up, so a large part of whatever comes next is on him.

[alec]

"kent strain"

Definition: the intellectual stress created by the need to invent excuses for pandemic statistics based on the misreading of data from a small coastal town in Kent, England (typically Hastings).

[steamdrivenandy]

Dec 22, 2021 8:11:17 GMT alec said:

"kent strain"

Definition: the intellectual stress created by the need to invent excuses for pandemic statistics based on the misreading of data from a small coastal town in Kent, England (typically Hastings).

Tortuous Alec. Hastings is in East Sussex, not far from the Kent border though.

[alec]

More evidence of just how good the Northern Irish Protocol is for Northern Ireland, and how much of a negative impact on trade the TCA will have - www.politico.eu/article/ireland-brexit-trade-britain-northern-ireland/

[steve]

Alec
The "evidence", your word not mine, is every single other coronal virus has become milder as far as we know,that's why we have the common cold, of course that doesn't mean this one will.
It's not evidence as defined it's probability based on past examples.

If you wish to remain in a little cloud of gloom that's entirely up to you, personally I am rather hoping to be able to say in a month or so that that was just another example of hysterical over reaction.

Really everyone should hope that this is correct.

[alec]

steamdrivenandy - oops!

[steve]

Sda
The "'sex strain" has rather different implications don't you think.

[alec]

steve - "The "evidence", your word not mine, is every single other coronal virus has become milder as far as we know..."

'As far as we know'.....

Do we know how severe these viruses were when they first emerged, and do we know how quickly that process was, and do we know that every coronavirus will follow the same path?

Thought not.

[jimjam]

Neil,

That the Tories would drop to low 30s in polls at some point in this parliament is no surprise at all. As CB posted a day or 2 ago the pace of the change in the last 6 weeks since the Paterson affair emerged is unusual perhaps but that Governments support slip is to be expected.
That it didn't that much, except, for blips around specific Covid related occurrences, has been imo due to Covid drowning out all other politics thus suspending 'typical' VI trends within parliaments.

I always expected this to occur at some point and also expect some polls to see the Tories drop below 30%, quite possible for Labour to open up a lead of around 10% with the odd poll pushing 15% due to MOE.

For Labour to be in a position to form the next Government (OM almost certainly beyond them), they need to be over 40% with the Tories below 30% for period of a few months.

This could occur next Autumn if Johnson hangs on but if he goes it may never happen; although the successor and how they perform is at best informed speculation at present

[crossbat11]

Dec 22, 2021 7:27:55 GMT steve said:

View Attachment

Venue for next businesses meeting set.

I've been in that boozer. It's got mirrors everywhere.

[hireton]

Dec 22, 2021 8:08:51 GMT alec said:

Sunak's intervention in the hospitality sector really is starting to look threadbare this morning. Low tax, low spend penny pinching at it's finest.

Just heard an interview with a hotel chain owner that said the £6000 per venue is not much use when your business rates are £250,000 a month. Most venues are smaller, so won't get the full amount, with £2,500 being the more normal figure - perhaps one nights takings for a pre Christmas do for a small venue?

I suspect part of the reasoning for not introducing mandatory curbs is Sunak's unwillingness to cough up, so a large part of whatever comes next is on him.

A reversal of his "Eat out to help out" position.

Something politically significant went largely unremarked earlier this week: somebody in the UK Cabinet gave a detailed briefing to journalists of divisions within the Cabinet on covid restrictions to the level of which Ministers said what. Thst is normally the sign of disintegrating collective responsibility and loyalty to the No10 incumbent.

[steamdrivenandy]

One can argue the last two GE's occurred due to errors of judgement. One by May and one by SNP/LD. Given the evidence of inept judgement exhibited by our current PM, how likely is it we'll see another GE fairly soon?

[steve]

Alec
Are you talking to yourself or can anyone join in?
Of the seven coronavirus detected since 1965 including SARS.
None other than covid 19 are now responsible for significant mortality.

[hireton]

Dec 22, 2021 8:16:29 GMT steve said:

Alec
The "evidence", your word not mine, is every single other coronal virus has become milder as far as we know,that's why we have the common cold, of course that doesn't mean this one will.
It's not evidence as defined it's probability based on past examples.

If you wish to remain in a little cloud of gloom that's entirely up to you, personally I am rather hoping to be able to say in a month or so that that was just another example of hysterical over reaction.

Really everyone should hope that this is correct.

If that is the case, there must be peer reviewed papers which provide the evidence ( especially that a probability creates a certainty as you describe). Can you provide any links to summaries of them?

[Danny]

Dec 22, 2021 7:59:42 GMT alec said:

steve - "It's actually rather more likely given the pathology of previous coronavirus that it will change into something better."

Evidence?

We are not extinct as a species. The death toll from flu or corona viruses (excepting covid) is normally considered acceptably low. No virus or bacteria has ever created a sustained high severity illness. They ALWAYS go back to being mild and controlled. There is no example of a disease which did not mutate to a mild form. Granted, thats a process of both pathogen and humans adapting their biochemistry to a new equilibrium.

The experts I read have consistently said that viruses can become milder, or they can become more severe.

In the short term thats arguable, but longer term obviously its false. However, the bigger picture looks like covid came to us more severe because it had been living amongst animals for a while and was new to us. It has taken a while to adapt to us and become milder.

In the case of covid, there is no evolutionary pressure on it either way (it infects others before symptoms in the host become critical) so you are just being senselessly optimistic that random good things may happen.

Thats simply wrong. There is lots of evolutionary pressure. One example is a policy of testing and isolation, which must encourage any strain which is missed by the testing. Its certain there will be evolutionary pressure based upon how we behave when we are infected. If someone coughs and sneezes others will avoid them. If they are very ill they go to bed and dont meet anyone. Both bad for transmission and introducing pressure against strains causing even mild symptoms. If we know a disease doesnt kill people we dont mind still socialising and coughing on others. If we know its deadly we avoid people who show signs of it. Thats nothing to do with imposed regulations, people do theses sorts of things automatically. But they impose pressure on the virus and are part of our defences against infection which have been developed in us by evolution.

There is now a developing groundswell of research into potentially much better vaccines (nasal sprays, skin patches) and critically, these are increasingly focusing on wide spectrum approaches, with talk of a single flu/coronavirus snort which can cover multiple coronaviruses all in one.

Thats still big pharma. We stay safe from the 3 or 4 corona viruses in permanent circulation by being regularly exposed to them every year. If we succeeded in preventing them circulating amongst humans, then we face the problem of the suddenly coming back one year from some animal population in an altered form. These interventions are dangerous if we use them to eliminate mild diseases which are protecting us from serious ones. The human race did not get a serious covid epidemic because it already had significant immunity to corona viruses generally.

This next few weeks look rather grim.

The most likely outcome based upon facts about omicron outbreaks so far is many cases few deaths. The biggest risk is economic harm because of ordering people to go home who are perfectly well enough to do their jobs. It might be omicron diverges from its history to date, but the FACTS predict it will not. SAGE take their mandate to advise the worst possible outcome. Not a likely outcome, the very worst possible. This has always been proven to be a huge exaggeration of the harm covid realy causes but has caused much knock on harm because we intervened and forced humans to stop their normal behaviour. We have even intervened in the normal human immune process which would have ended this epidemic long ago if we had not stopped it doing so. This was actually a pretty mild epidemic as things go, but we made it into the worst human disaster in the UK in a very long time.

[steve]

Horton
I didn't say a probability creates a certainty in fact I made it abundantly clear that it doesn't.

If you are going to critique my posts perhaps you might consider reading them.

[Danny]

Dec 22, 2021 8:19:50 GMT jimjam said:

Neil,

That the Tories would drop to low 30s in polls at some point in this parliament is no surprise at all. As CB posted a day or 2 ago the pace of the change in the last 6 weeks since the Paterson affair emerged is unusual perhaps but that Governments support slip is to be expected.
That it didn't that much, except, for blips around specific Covid related occurrences, has been imo due to Covid drowning out all other politics thus suspending 'typical' VI trends within parliaments.

Its repetition of mistakes, not making mistakes. People forgive mistakes. Especially your supporters forgive your mistakes. But once they are repeated again and again, then voters accept you have failed.

The Uk government started with the time tried and tested policy of managing epidemic by catching it and treating the sick as they arise. In effect of curing and rendering it safe using the human immune system.  But they decided to change to a policy of relying upon vaccination. This required them to try to halt the epidemic until a vaccine arrived. This didnt work, it just carried on more slowly and therefore at huge economic cost on top of everything else. Finally vaccine arrive in December 2020. In december 2021 covid is still here, the vaccine has failed. Ok, its done some good, but as a policy to end the epidemic it has absolutely failed, and government has even been publicising this lately.

Do you not see why people are now thinking this government is incompetent whereas one year ago they did not?

[jib]

Danny

Your medical musings are hitting new levels of ridiculous nonsense.

"Simply wrong" is the only thing worth quoting from that one!

[steamdrivenandy]

Scores so far - posts per day - Top 6

1 Tancred 15.1
2 Danny 12.5
3 Steve 10.4
4 Carfrew 9.6
5 Colin 8.3
6 Old Nat 7.8

Not sure where the top two get promoted to but the playoffs look tight.

TW, last year's favourites for promotion, have dropped down the rankings. 

[crossbat11]

Dec 22, 2021 8:19:50 GMT jimjam said:

Neil,

That the Tories would drop to low 30s in polls at some point in this parliament is no surprise at all. As CB posted a day or 2 ago the pace of the change in the last 6 weeks since the Paterson affair emerged is unusual perhaps but that Governments support slip is to be expected.
That it didn't that much, except, for blips around specific Covid related occurrences, has been imo due to Covid drowning out all other politics thus suspending 'typical' VI trends within parliaments.

I always expected this to occur at some point and also expect some polls to see the Tories drop below 30%, quite possible for Labour to open up a lead of around 10% with the odd poll pushing 15% due to MOE.

For Labour to be in a position to form the next Government (OM almost certainly beyond them), they need to be over 40% with the Tories below 30% for period of a few months.

This could occur next Autumn if Johnson hangs on but if he goes it may never happen; although the successor and how they perform is at best informed speculation at present

Such have been the lengths of incumbent government terms since 1979, we really have few periods to study in terms of the periods prior to a change in government, certainly since the polling became more thorough and sophisticated (more reliable???). This makes it difficult, maybe dangerous too, to be certain about what sort of mid term polling leads in terms of size and longevity predict subsequent defeat for the incumbents. Or rather where an opposition needs to be in the polls, and for how long, to be in a winning position at the subsequent GE.

In 78-79, the period prior to Thatcher's win, Callaghan was in a decent position in the polls right up to the winter of discontent in 1978. Those last six months of industrial strife gave Thatcher a late home run. We then have to go a long way forward to the 1995-97 period that preceded Labour's win. Major was probably on his way out after Black Wednesday and Blair's ascent to the Labour leadership just accentuated the inevitable. He was double whammyed by a loss of economic confidence in his government and the emergence of an opposition that made the political weather. Everything is unique in its own way, but the period that preceded a change of government in 95-97 offers little lessons for now, certainly in terms of polling soothsaying.

Which leaves us only with 2008-2010. Brown, like Callaghan, was polling fairly well in 2008 but the financial crash and subsequent recession gave Cameron his route to Downing Street, assisted by Clegg.

I suppose the point I'm making, and it's one purely for discussion rather than any assertion or statement of fact, is that I don't think there are definitive polling models that dictate when a government is on the way out and an opposition is on the way in. Things broke fairly late for Thatcher and Cameron as opposition leaders. Corbyn surged late in 2017 too.

A caveat though. It does depend on the incumbent's parliamentary position too. Johnson, in that sense, is in a much better position in that regard than Callaghan, Major and Brown were. Starmer has a large mountain to climb and I totally agree with your view about the likelihood of a Labour OM.

Final reflection. Remarkable to think that we've had only three defeated sitting PMs in the last 42 years.

[shevii]

Don't think much of the script for the reboot of Miracle on 34th Street- just as well it's been pushed back to January:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/man-accused-of-chris-whitty-assault-contests-charges-in-dressing-gown

My jury service was rather similar with the judge's summing up containing a lot of quoted expletives.

[barbara]

Dec 22, 2021 8:51:16 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Scores so far - posts per day - Top 6

1 Tancred 15.1
2 Danny 12.5
3 Steve 10.4
4 Carfrew 9.6
5 Colin 8.3
6 Old Nat 7.8

Not sure where the top two get promoted to but the playoffs look tight.

TW, last year's favourites for promotion, have dropped down the rankings. 

The TWs have been remarkably inactive lately. Do you think they've set up a new board just for themselves?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 22, 2021 8:51:16 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Scores so far - posts per day - Top 6

1 Tancred 15.1
2 Danny 12.5
3 Steve 10.4
4 Carfrew 9.6
5 Colin 8.3
6 Old Nat 7.8

Not sure where the top two get promoted to but the playoffs look tight.

TW, last year's favourites for promotion, have dropped down the rankings. 

what period is the average over? In the last 24 hours the activity tab in my profile says I did six posts, but I got quoted three times and it often it might be an idea to reply.

Graham’s post generated quite a bit of interest so he might end up replying more, etc.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Crofty’s activity tab says he posted 14 times in the last 24 hours! No wonder he liked SDA’s post

[John Chanin]

Dec 21, 2021 19:41:42 GMT graham said:

Nobody present was persuaded to change their views , but all did agree with my assertion that there has been far less dramatic change since 1967 than in the same period prior to that year - ie life changed far more dramatically on a day to day basis 1912 - 1967 than from 1967 - to the present day.

I would be interested to read the opinions of other on this!

Economists will know that there is a well known book by Robert Gordon called the "Rise and fall of American growth".  The thesis of this is that exactly as you say changes in the early part of the 20th century were far more consequential than those more recently, and this is the primary cause of the much reduced rates of economic growth seen in the last 40 years compared to previously. 

As you might expect this has led to a great deal of controversy, with more "optimistic" commentators suggesting that recent changes in communication and IT and AI simply haven't shown up yet in improved living standards, and others preferring to reference non-technological reasons for declines in growth.

[neilj]

Dec 22, 2021 8:51:16 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Scores so far - posts per day - Top 6

1 Tancred 15.1
2 Danny 12.5
3 Steve 10.4
4 Carfrew 9.6
5 Colin 8.3
6 Old Nat 7.8

Not sure where the top two get promoted to but the playoffs look tight.

TW, last year's favourites for promotion, have dropped down the rankings. 

I demand  VAR:-)