7-Feb-2022 : LAB: 42 / CON: 32 / LDEM: 9 / GRN: 6

[Deleted]

May 4, 2022 7:23:43 GMT moby said:

May 4, 2022 5:35:44 GMT nickp said:

That applies more to the Right of the party, surely? As proven at last election.

And Corbyn got the votes of existing members too, not just new joiners.

Everyone I know within my PLP supported the Party despite Corbyn. I dont accept the 'betrayal, stabbed in the back' conspiracy theory. There were insiders who wanted him gone but that does not translate into an 80 seat loss. Like I said look at at the Labour Party facebook site today and see where the hate is coming from.

Every friend and family member I know all continued to vote Labour despite huge reservations about Corbyn’s perceived ineptitude. The blame for his heavy defeat has nothing to do with the “right of the party” but probably the right - and the centre - of the country.

it’s a weedy excuse in my view.

[barbara]

lululemonmustdobetter -
Top 10 of Those responsible for Brexit:
1) Those who voted to Leave
2) Cameron (for calling the ref in the first place and then leading a piss poor remain campaign)
3) Rupert Murdoch
4) Johnson
5) Rothermere
6) Nigel Farage
7) The Tory Party
8) Dominic Cummings
9) Jo Swinson* - who gave Johnson his election and attempted to use the '19 election to dislodge Labour as the main opposition party with the good old LD slogan of 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for another Tory Government'.
10) Nicola Sturgeon - as above gave Johnson his election and was motivated by desire to ensure SNP electoral dominance North of the boarder and use Brexit as means to further drive for Independence


Excellent list.

[thylacine]

just got the conservative flyer through the door. It was the candidate himself, didnt bother knocking for a chat ( cant think why ). I wanted to doorstep him to waste as much of his time as possible. The only other flyer we've had was labour and she did stop just to check we were turning out for the vote. She also canvassed my father and brother who just live up the road, never bother voting and to be fair its best they dont.No sign of the LibDem machine even though they have a chance in the ward and outside chance for the council.

[barbara]

May 4, 2022 9:14:10 GMT leftieliberal said:

'How Labour broke Liverpool' unherd.com/2022/05/how-labour-broke-liverpool/ an article by David Jeffery, a lecturer in British Politics at the University of Liverpool. I knew about the corruption in Liverpool politics, but I never realised just how bad it was, even after the removal of Joe Anderson. One also has to ask, why did Labour HQ, and by extension Keir Starmer, restart the selection process for Mayor only after removing the most-experienced candidates. Obviously they know something that the public doesn't, but what is it?

Just a bit of interesting background.

At one point in my career I was an Assistant Director of Education in Liverpool with responsibilities that included The Attendance and Welfare Service for pupils. Joe Anderson was a Labour councillor and an Education Welfare Officer in the next door council of Sefton.
By dint of this experience Joe had the Education brief for the Labour opposition so I encountered him a lot.

I went to Liverpool as part of a new team put in place in conjunction with David Blunkett at the DFE after the city's education service had been failed by Ofsted. This was 2000 so only 15-20 years after the Militant debacle.)

Joe was very robust and occasionally belligerent  and we had some robust conversations during my time there! 

The city at that time was in exactly the same situation when I got there as it is now. There was a newish Lib Dem led council in place after recent elections and the Government's presence was heavily felt. A new Chief Executive and Corporate team were empowered by the government presence to stand up to long standing poor administrative and political practice. The team I was in had 12 months to get a good Ofsted inspection report or the Labour Government was going to contract out the whole department over to a private consultancy (Serco or the like). We got a great inspection report and the heavy hand of government was lifted. 

The problems at the time arose from the following factors: 

Complacency by Labour that they would always be in charge 
Over politicisation of the council leading to officers being afraid of challenging councillors attempting to subvert due processes
Too much internal dealing in relation to power and political influence amongst a clique
The temptation of a few people in power to make a nice buck through contracts and the like

I think it's typical of an isolated poor city/town where people feel that the rest of the world has forgotten them. I later did two periods of consultancy in North East Lincolnshire (which is Grimsby and Cleethorpes) and I encountered this same feeling of isolation there. Edge of world is what it feels like. There are lot of poor areas on the coast who feel like this. I live just outside Hartlepool and there is a bit of this here too.

(After I left Liverpool I was appointed as Director at South Tyneside ( South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn  - also on the coast) who were in exactly the same position as at Liverpool ( failed inspection, Government intervention -and a lot of the same factors existed as above) 

[alec]

lens - facemasks: If I were you, I wouldn't be convinced on anything relating to covid if that means relying on substandard media reporting.

The study on mask wearing in schools that the BBC reported actually found that covid absences infections fell 32% in unmasked schools and 43% in schools using masks, so a healthy benefit, but this was reported as inconclusive because the sample size was small, meaning wide error margins.

On your wider point about Scotland's recent case load and mask wearing, the timing of waves is clearly a significant influence, but for the last month Scotland has had consistently lower infection rates than England, on the ONS infection survey. The Covid dashboard suggests otherwise, largely because (I assume) free testing continued in Scotland, thus capturing a higher proportion of cases.

There is no question that masks do help prevent infection, and while there is some uncertainty about the real world effectiveness of mask wearing, the answer to that is to mandate high quality masks and educate people how to use them, like Germany did with FFP2 masks, which were at one point supplied free of charge by the federal government.

[alec]

Meanwhile, it looks like we are perhaps 4 - 6 weeks away from the next covid wave, as BA4 and BA5, plus the BA2 subvariant progressing across the US become established in the UK. Anyone who caught BA1 (so pretty much all infected in Dec/Jan and a varying number if Feb/Mar infected individuals) won't have any protection against these variants, although booster vaccination still appears to offer protection against severe outcomes. No real signal yet on the underlying severity of the new variants, but the current assumption from most is that they would be similar to the original Omicron. Omicron specific vaccines appear to offer no additional protection compared to the wild type derived original vaccines, as was found with previous strain adjusted vaccines, so again, this suggests an element of antigenic sin has already occurred. If this is the case, a severe variant with a high degree of immunity escape would be potentially very serious indeed, with the prospect of no effective vaccines.

We'll get new waves a couple of times a year, until we wake up to how to actually live with covid, but I just hope we do wake up before we get a serious variant emerge.

[hireton]

Re "the LDs and SNP gave Johnson his election" line this is Corbyn speaking in the 2nd Reading debate on the Early Election Bill:

"I have said consistently, when no deal is off the table we will back an election. Today, after much denial and bluster by the Prime Minister, no deal is officially off the table, so this country can vote for the Government it deserves.

I shall be voting against an early election today and encourage as many of my colleagues as possible to defy the threats and blandishments, and to do so as well. The uncertainty about the outcome of a general election means that, in reality, no deal has certainly not been taken off the table."

The quite neatly encapsulates both that Labour supported an election once a no deal Brexit was taken off the table and Corbyn's characteristic confusion about most things. He actually did vote for the Bill at 3rd Reading (there seems yo have been no division at 2nd Reading) as did 126 other Labour MPs voting with those heinous LD and SNP MPs.

Source here:

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-29/debates/DDAEFDD2-1872-45C6-8553-8B5B3786F50B/EarlyParliamentaryGeneralElectionBill

[neilj]

[shevii]

steve

No Starmer IS a purist- why would he not tolerate a broad church or criticism of NATO or criticism of Israel? The Times reports (admittedly from "sources") that Starmer would be happy to expel all the Socialist Campaign Group given the chance and is being urged to do so by his mates. That's purist to my mind even if exaggerated reporting.

He makes his hatred of the left very clear in his actions. Suspend Corbyn indefinitely, who had a smallish but key hard to get to vote section of the electorate, trawl twitter for any superficial reason to expel other left wing activists (even a like). So he attacks the left beyond merely words and then his supporters call people who don't vote for that a "Tory enabler". The "Tory enabler" is the one who created the situation in the first place and has yet to make any sort of offer to the electorate often making little fuss (or even supporting) some truly dreadful Tory policies on war crimes, undercover police, freedom to demonstrate, voter ID etc.

Let's also not forget that the left activists are a relatively small group of people so when you are talking about "Tory enablers" you're not talking about a group that is going to decide the next election but mostly about ordinary voters who aren't much into politics but have not been enthused enough by Starmer to bother to vote Labour.

Good article here from Peter Oborne- Tory turned Corbyn lite (in reality maybe neither of those things but an independent journalist):

www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/life-after-death-tony-blair?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign&utm_content=ap_qohdfd85qk

He destroys the centrist myth that because Blair won three elections 25 years ago in a different set of economic circumstances and a different electorate that the same thing will work today. Yet this is the template that Starmer is working from including Blair era appointments. Labour had 20 point leads mid term even before Blair took over whereas we're looking at a far more corrupt Tory Party today, far worse economic conditions and far worse public services and the mid term lead is 6 or 7 points. In an era of things like brexit, Starmer and centrism is the problem here, not the left.

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

Corbyn was enabler in chief of Brexit? In chief?? 😱

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

So, if the left have reservations concerning the policies of the right in the Labour Party, they are the problem, not Starmer, But if the right of the party sabotage Corbyn, that’s Corbyn’s fault?

[domjg]

May 4, 2022 9:53:07 GMT lens said:

May 3, 2022 22:06:45 GMT domjg said:

lens I find it so easy to wear a mask, I'm now so used to it. It undoubtedly makes some difference if in part only to reassure the vulnerable and anxious when they see you're wearing one.

I honestly have no idea why some see mask wearing in public, indoor spaces as such an onerous imposition? Maybe you can enlighten me? I understand they can make some feel claustrophobic. Is that it?

Fair question, and if you find it "so easy" I can only assume you are not hard of hearing or wear glasses! Quite apart from the irritation there used to be of making sure you had one when going out. I've also heard from much younger people that in some cases it's exacerbated facial skin problems. (Wearing one once a week for an hour in a supermarket whilst shopping may be one thing - wearing it for a 10 hour shift continuously every working day is quite another.)

You say you feel it helps to "reassure the vulnerable and anxious". I wonder. I know of only one person (early on in the pandemic) who has directly suffered severe life changing effects due directly to Covid - and is lucky to be alive. But I know of quite a few (mainly living alone, and typically not needing to leave home for work) who are showing various degrees of mental illness and especially anxiety. Maybe it's worth a study into how much being surrounded by masked figures may aggravate such tendencies? It's hardly a coincidence that in the world of cinema masked faces are typically used to enhance a feeling of menace. (And in the real world, Covid masks must have been a godsend to bank robbers and other criminals to avoid CCTV!!   ) At the very least, the whole mask business has made me realise how important non-verbal communication is.

I confess to some amusement about a couple of people I know in the anxious category who were very "mask conscious", but eventually caught Covid and experienced little more than cold like symptoms - and have now ditched mask wearing altogether. I strongly suspect that they realised (and yes, largely down to vaccines) that the reality was far less a problem than the anticipation, and having "a cold" for a few days was worth it for their mental health.

I for one would be prepared to accept this "onerous imposition" if I felt it would make a meaningful difference. But the evidence is it doesn't, not in such as shops, schools etc anyway. (I'll say again - clinical situations, with strict protocols, may be a different matter.) 

"Maybe it's worth a study into how much being surrounded by masked figures may aggravate such tendencies? It's hardly a coincidence that in the world of cinema masked faces are typically used to enhance a feeling of menace" - Are you being serious???

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

May 4, 2022 7:40:17 GMT moby said:

May 4, 2022 6:45:33 GMT thylacine said:

I hear what you say but does that mean that Starmer is failing to unite the party too? Is there a labour potential leader who you think might be able to unite the factions?

He's struggling I agree but deserves his chance. My main point though is Corbyn was always going to split the party and without the backing of the MP's his chances were negligible. 

Corbyn didn’t split the party, they were already split. As Roger Mexico pointed out years ago on here, there was no way the right of the party would allow a left wing leader, whereas the left allowed a right wing leader.

This is in part, as Riger pointed out, because they didn’t want the left to show how well their policies could work. 

Agree that with the MPs against him, his prospects were slim, especially after he showed the potential of a left wing prospectus in 2017. But some it would seem are reluctant to accept that the MP actions had a part to play in 2019. Though it was the media as well, as lululemon points out.

[jimjam]

Lulu/Barbara,

I normally stay out of Brexit Stuff but whilst not disagreeing that those on the list are appropriate I think you let Labour (my party) off with their culpability.

They failed to change the economy and relied on transfer payments to address income disparities. (needed of course initially but became the template imo).

It was too easy for the Coalition to disproportionately cut these transfer payments which in tern led to greater disillusionment with the status quo which Brexit offered a chance to vote against.

IMO, a more activist Labour Government from 2001 onwards could have entrenched a lower level of inequality and in turn the impact of anti status quo/EU arguments.

[shevii]

May 4, 2022 7:53:17 GMT crossbat11 said:

May 4, 2022 7:23:43 GMT moby said:

Everyone I know within my PLP supported the Party despite Corbyn. I dont accept the 'betrayal, stabbed in the back' conspiracy theory. There were insiders who wanted him gone but that does not translate into an 80 seat loss. Like I said look at at the Labour Party facebook site today and see where the hate is coming from.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I'd counsel caution about overplaying the social media hostility towards Starmer within the party. It's there, certainly, but its noise far outweighs its number or influence. My sense is that the real Labour Party, including all its
traditional wings, are behind Starmer and united in their desire to remove the Tories from power. That includes the majority of the membership too.

Of course, and rightly so, there will be internal pressures and debates about how fast or how radical the leadership should go, but the real vitriol is confined to those remaining members of what was, it had to be said, a Corbynite cult. Those who slew the Messiah will be condemned for the remainder of their days. Fire and brimstone must rain upon their heathen heads and they must never sleep easily again. I'd be very surprised if any of this dwindling faction were traditional or habitual Labour supporters before Corbyn came down and went amongst them.

Interestingly, on this admittedly very unrepresentative forum, the most ardent criticism of Starmer tends to come from people who don't vote for the party traditionally and often actually vote for candidates and parties fighting Labour at elections. They appear to have only ever flirted with Labour when Corbyn was leader. A social democratic Labour holds no attractions for them. That's fine, but it's silly to think that this criticism is coming from what I'd describe as within the real Labour Party

Well of course the Labour Party is fairly united as perhaps 200k members have left and perhaps 50k members joined.  A few long term unhappy members will have stuck around either because they are strong locally or simply because the Labour Party has been a huge part of their life.  Even so I think last year's conference showed quite a few differences on some key issues.

You might be right about short termers but many of these were people like me who had been party members back in the Kinnock days and returned to the fold, perhaps plenty under Miliband as well as Corbyn.  It's a bit chicken and egg to decide who the "real" Labour Party is.

Also I think you exaggerate the "Corbyn cult" and chose not to use the same term for the Blairites within Labour who are even more dogmatic than the left.  I can only speak for myself and my friends (older age group) but nobody expects pure left policies and even if they liked Corbyn they're not obsessed with him. Corbyn is only relevant to many because of the way he has been treated.

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

May 4, 2022 9:45:21 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

May's % in the OPs was falling steadily, so the net effect was massively in Corbyn's favour during the campaign.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

Yes, AW posted data at the time showing Corbyn’s upward trend being checked both times by those tragic events that led to the pauses in the campaining. He’d only been leader for a year. 

so naturally the right in the party rewarded this promise by sabotaging him.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

May 4, 2022 11:13:05 GMT jimjam said:

Lulu/Barbara,

I normally stay out of Brexit Stuff but whilst not disagreeing that those on the list are appropriate I think you let Labour (my party) off with their culpability.

They failed to change the economy and relied on transfer payments to address income disparities. (needed of course initially but became the template imo).

It was too easy to the Coalition to disproportionately cut these transfer payments which in term led to greater disillusionment with the status quo which the Brexit offered a chance to vote against.

IMO, a more activists Labour Government from 2001 onwards could have entrenched a lower level of inequality and in turn the impact of anti status quo/EU arguments.

Hi @jimjam

Totally agree, and would put that above Corbyn and probably in the top 20. 

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

Blair, in allowing immigration without doing the extras to accommodate like creating a load more good jobs, building lots more housing etc., also had a part to play in Brexit,

And as for the Lib Dems, even when the Tories were putting out the vans and ramping up the rhetoric against immigrants, seeing immigration shoot up in polling as a result, and consequently the rise in UKip that led to the EU ref, even then, they still didn’t pull the plug on the coalition.

This was after a load of Austerity and all that it entailed. What would the Tories have had to do to disquiet the Lib Dems? Announce the death of the first born?

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Hi crossbat11

On Corbyn, I'm thinking we've rehearsed all our arguments on him and, as you've no doubt read, I've pledged my troth. I'm going to have to disappoint you by saying I have a view about him and his leadership that is not flattering and very unlikely to be changed.

Oh you could never disappoint me, and I know plenty who share your view. I think there is a bit of re-writing of history and slanting or reality as far as Corbyn is concerned. In regards to character assassination, the stuff that was circulating on various media platforms and the Tory press made what Miliband had to endure (pictures of eating a beacon sandwich, doing up his kitchen and being in Nicola's pocket) look tame.

That's all in the past, but my main concern now is that Labour/KS have learnt the wrong lessons from the last decade, particularly why Corbyn was able to do well in '17, how Johnson has been able to attract a group of voters that were trad Labour, Brexit itself and that Blarite neo/lib economic policy is out of date. 

[bardin1]

I've been researching how many times our Prime minister has been interviewed on our public independent broadcasting radio service since becoming Prime Minister

I think i've found it


BBC Radio 4 Today programme 05 October 2021 (now no longer available)

I've tried to find out how many times he has refused to be interviewed when all the other party leaders have agreed but I'm afraid I lost count


Democratic deficit in action

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

Apr 19, 2022 7:46:46 GMT crossbat11 said:

Apr 19, 2022 7:13:30 GMT jib said:

I'm guessing your Lib Dem analogy is based on them pledging not to raise tuition fees and then, once in coalition with the Tories, reneging on the pledge and raising them. Albeit an extreme example of political chicanery, it is fairly common for political parties to fail to honour manifesto pledges, but they then have a day of reckoning with the electorate. Often the voters are surprisingly forgiving but the Lib Dems were kicked firmly in the ballot box in 2015; as is the way in democracies. They still haven't recovered but their mistake on tuition fees started no rot in 2010.

This oft-repeated meme in defence of Lib Dems, that they just betrayed a manifesto pledge on tuition fees, and many parties betray a pledge or two, so it’s not that bad, is typical of the problem with Lib Dems and why they still might not be trusted if they and their supporters can’t see that the scale of what the Lib Dems did is way beyond that.

Here is a reminder of the scale of the problem.

yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians-political-figures/all

clegg is on 17%. That’s even below Blair on 19%. Both of whom are below Corbyn, and Johnson

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

Apr 19, 2022 9:49:37 GMT steve said:

jib
The Lib dems never held office individually, they were the junior partner in a coalition government with the Tories.
Their " treachery" ie failing to implement their manifesto commitments is clearly a moot point as they weren't in a position to enact them, a more valid point is they shouldn't have supported policies entirely contrary but by entering a coalition they did undertake to support that coalition's policies .If the electoral arithmetic had allowed them a coalition with Labour the same would have been true.

They weren’t in a position to enact all their policies, but they were in a position to not assist the Tories so avidly with theirs. 

And being prepared to front so many policies and take the stick for it they arguably allowed the Tories to go even further than they might. 

And if we accept your idea that coalition means they were the junior partner and so have to do as they are told, it is another argument for not backing the LDs, since their manifesto and what they stand for is meaningless if they are likely to only gain power in coalition and just go along with the bigger party. 

[alec]

lens - "And in the real world, Covid masks must have been a godsend to bank robbers and other criminals to avoid CCTV!! "

Quite wrong. My Uncle Alf ('Knuckles', as he is affectionately known in The Family) is a bit of a villain, and makes a decent living robbing - at least until the pandemic. Time was when he would walk masked up into a post office and they'd shovel cash at him, but now all he gets is a look of sympathy.

Hard times, mate, hard times.

[shevii]

May 4, 2022 11:35:43 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Hi crossbat11

On Corbyn, I'm thinking we've rehearsed all our arguments on him and, as you've no doubt read, I've pledged my troth. I'm going to have to disappoint you by saying I have a view about him and his leadership that is not flattering and very unlikely to be changed.

Oh you could never disappoint me, and I know plenty who share your view. I think there is a bit of re-writing of history and slanting or reality as far as Corbyn is concerned. In regards to character assassination, the stuff that was circulating on various media platforms and the Tory press made what Miliband had to endure (pictures of eating a beacon sandwich, doing up his kitchen and being in Nicola's pocket) look tame.

That's all in the past, but my main concern now is that Labour/KS have learnt the wrong lessons from the last decade, particularly why Corbyn was able to do well in '17, how Johnson has been able to attract a group of voters that were trad Labour, Brexit itself and that Blarite neo/lib economic policy is out of date. 

If I could give you two likes for that comment I would do!

Beyond the "learning of lessons" though I am beginning to take this a step further into extremist view territory by saying it's not to them about getting elected but actually what they want. The left get criticised for the well worn cliche that they want purity over power.  The same could be said to be true of the Blairite wing (for want of a better word) in that they are so focused on their vision that they'd rather be out of power than compromising on that vision.  I think we give far too much tolerance for the idea that moving right is about "pragmatism" when it might simply be something core to their beliefs.  This doesn't apply universally and there are plenty of centrist Labour MPs without that core ideology and willing to compromise but it does apply among the movers and shakers.

Were Starmer to get in, I think it's highly possible that those people defending Starmer on here will be hugely disappointed with what he does.  This one has been doing the rounds but surely gives an indication of what he might be like when even Theresa May blocks an extradition demand from him for an Aspergers flying saucer hacker to be tried in the US:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218872/Gary-McKinnon-extradition-US-outrage-hacker-wont-American-authorities.html

[lululemonmustdobetter]

May 4, 2022 10:52:24 GMT hireton said:

Re "the LDs and SNP gave Johnson his election" line this is Corbyn speaking in the 2nd Reading debate on the Early Election Bill:

"I have said consistently, when no deal is off the table we will back an election. Today, after much denial and bluster by the Prime Minister, no deal is officially off the table, so this country can vote for the Government it deserves.

I shall be voting against an early election today and encourage as many of my colleagues as possible to defy the threats and blandishments, and to do so as well. The uncertainty about the outcome of a general election means that, in reality, no deal has certainly not been taken off the table."

The quite neatly encapsulates both that Labour supported an election once a no deal Brexit was taken off the table and Corbyn's characteristic confusion about most things. He actually did vote for the Bill at 3rd Reading (there seems yo have been no division at 2nd Reading) as did 126 other Labour MPs voting with those heinous LD and SNP MPs.

Source here:

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-29/debates/DDAEFDD2-1872-45C6-8553-8B5B3786F50B/EarlyParliamentaryGeneralElectionBill

At that time the SNP and LD had already jumped ship on preventing a GE and proposed the motion - so any Labour attempt to prevent it from that point was going to be futile and to continue to oppose it opened them up to the accusation that they were thwarting the will of the people (which was a main Tory attack line). 

The LD and SNP made their decision based on their own political calculations (and both anticipated gaining seats) which is what one would expect - most of Labour did not want the election at that time as they knew what was coming. As far as your Nicola is concerned, she is far to an astute politician not to have been aware that to have an election then would mean Brexit would go ahead, so cannot be absolved of some of the responsibility for what happened.

[moby]

May 4, 2022 11:10:10 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 4, 2022 7:40:17 GMT moby said:

He's struggling I agree but deserves his chance. My main point though is Corbyn was always going to split the party and without the backing of the MP's his chances were negligible. 

Corbyn didn’t split the party, they were already split. As Roger Mexico pointed out years ago on here, there was no way the right of the party would allow a left wing leader, whereas the left allowed a right wing leader.

This is in part, as Riger pointed out, because they didn’t want the left to show how well their policies could work. 

Agree that with the MPs against him, his prospects were slim, especially after he showed the potential of a left wing prospectus in 2017. But some it would seem are reluctant to accept that the MP actions had a part to play in 2019. Though it was the media as well, as lululemon points out.

Don't agree with Roger's assessment, some had that purist view but most of us just wanted Labour to win and Corbyn was never going to. I never really had a problem with him on idealogical grounds but I didn't think he was up to it. He was a good campaigning MP but was compromised and very easily caricatured because of his views on the EU, NATO, Palestinians, IRA, world peace, disarmament etc. For instance people were never going to vote for someone who wants to end NATO and couldn't bring himself to point the finger of blame for the Salisbury poisonings. The media are like the weather, its always there and if you are Labour, they would always be against you.....so why exacerbate the risks associated with that by electing someone like him?

[moby]

May 4, 2022 11:35:43 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Hi crossbat11

On Corbyn, I'm thinking we've rehearsed all our arguments on him and, as you've no doubt read, I've pledged my troth. I'm going to have to disappoint you by saying I have a view about him and his leadership that is not flattering and very unlikely to be changed.

Oh you could never disappoint me, and I know plenty who share your view. I think there is a bit of re-writing of history and slanting or reality as far as Corbyn is concerned. In regards to character assassination, the stuff that was circulating on various media platforms and the Tory press made what Miliband had to endure (pictures of eating a beacon sandwich, doing up his kitchen and being in Nicola's pocket) look tame.

That's all in the past, but my main concern now is that Labour/KS have learnt the wrong lessons from the last decade, particularly why Corbyn was able to do well in '17, how Johnson has been able to attract a group of voters that were trad Labour, Brexit itself and that Blarite neo/lib economic policy is out of date. 

I don't actually know whether Labour did that well in 2017 or did May run the worst campaign in history...and yet still win?

[Danny]

May 4, 2022 6:59:58 GMT jimjam said:

As this is a polling site something I have taken from a press report re Starmer and so called Beergate.

''In January, a YouGov poll question about whether Starmer “generally did or did not follow lockdown rules” found 40% believed the Labour party did and 28% did not. The same question asked again on Tuesday found that 28% still did not think so – but that 42% now did. In contrast, 70% of people now think Johnson generally did not follow the rules.''

I think that 28% would be hard core Tory Party supporters in the main. Gives an indication of their floor perhaps.

That feels a terribly simplistic way to look at it. Do you really think party (political) supporters always say their leader is right regardless?  Surely an awful lot of voters must think both sides are a poor shower, and only pick them for lack of other real choice. So why would they slavishly support the leader or party line?

If polling always shows a huge support for such leaders, maybe we should be wondering whether the samples in the polls are not really representative of typical voters further than that they vote for a particular party. To what extent is polling normalised for the proper degree of commitment to parties?

[lens]

May 4, 2022 10:32:46 GMT alec said:

lens - facemasks: If I were you, I wouldn't be convinced on anything relating to covid if that means relying on substandard media reporting.

The study on mask wearing in schools that the BBC reported actually found that covid absences infections fell 32% in unmasked schools and 43% in schools using masks, so a healthy benefit, but this was reported as inconclusive because the sample size was small, meaning wide error margins.

I see. So when it doesn't suit you, the BBC becomes guilty of "substandard media reporting"!? OK...... In spite of the BBC having tended to adopt a response to Covid that has been on the cautious side. But OK - blame the messenger. To quote from that report:

"Schools where face coverings were used in October 2021 saw a reduction two to three weeks later in Covid absences from 5.3% to 3% - a drop of 2.3 percentage points.

In schools which did not use face coverings absences fell from 5.3% to 3.6% - a fall of 1.7 percentage points.

It said this was not statistically significant and the greater reduction in schools where masks were worn could be down to chance.

The review also acknowledges the use of face coverings could harm learning.

But a full analysis of the costs versus benefits of the policy has not been done."

Not mentioned there is the possibility that schools which enforced masks may have been more likely to implement improved ventilation policies and other measures. As for your point about it being inconclusive due to small samples, then it was based on 123 schools (!) which implemented a mask policy! A much more representative sample than in the studies you quoted, I'd say? And vastly more representative I would say, being closer to "real world" than medical based studies?

Note also the comment about downsides - harming learning in schools, and I'd add tending to increase anxiety in the larger population.

May 4, 2022 10:32:46 GMT alec said:

On your wider point about Scotland's recent case load and mask wearing, the timing of waves is clearly a significant influence, but for the last month Scotland has had consistently lower infection rates than England, on the ONS infection survey.

Oh for heaven's sake!! Has it escaped you that several weeks ago Scotland DROPPED it's mask mandate! The ONS figures were showing a decline before that, true, but the decline has continued after mask wearing ceased to be compulsory. There simply is no correlation that mask wearing in the community at large has much effect.

May 4, 2022 10:32:46 GMT alec said:

There is no question that masks do help prevent infection, and while there is some uncertainty about the real world effectiveness of mask wearing, the answer to that is to mandate high quality masks and educate people how to use them

Once more. What there may be no question about is mask effectiveness in carefully controlled situations (eg clinical) with properly trained staff, and subject to proper protocols about removal etc. Regarding usage in the real world, there is little "uncertainty" - the evidence is that they do virtually nothing.

Alec - if you want to carry on wearing a mask, that's fine. I'm not going to stop you. But please don't try to claim they are more effective than are. The evidence simply is not there outside of clinical etc use. And suggesting the answer is for everyone to wear high quality masks all the time when in public is simply ridiculous. Even medical staff find it adds significantly to stress etc to wear full PPE continuously for a shift, wearing such for an hour or so may be one thing - wearing such throughout an entire working day, every day, quite another.

And for what? I've no truck with Covid deniers or anti-vaxxers, but at the same time Covid has never been like the Black Death or a zombie apocalypse, no matter how much some people tend to think it was/is. That is especially true post vaccinations. Common sense always suggests balancing risk/reward, and for most people (now) any rewards from masks are dwarfed by their disadvantages, inconvenience as well as restricting communication.

[moby]

Labour predicted to make gains from Plaid in one of Plaid's strongholds:-
nation.cymru/news/plaid-cymru-could-lose-42-seats-and-control-of-carmarthenshire-council-amid-labour-surge-new-poll-projects/?fbclid=IwAR3Ne81sRs4jyq1f7Dh031oJHQ01FZOQqxs8jLTzZhhd1d6lrzI412pl6OQ