26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[mercian]

@isa
I wonder if someone with more energy than me will see whether the effect extends beyond 1966?  I do think that that was the start of the theory. The England football team have been doing quite well for the last few years compared to usual. I wonder if that's a small part of the reason for some of the narrow Tory victories? 

[ladyvalerie]

Nov 28, 2022 21:38:52 GMT oldnat said:

Nov 28, 2022 21:08:11 GMT ladyvalerie said:

Clearly, something I feel very strongly about. 😡

Indeed, and quite rightly so. However, do you prefer the UK system where there is no constitution, and hand picked judges are also free to interpret the law and constitution as they see fit?

It is clear to me that the American Constitution, set up by “the founding fathers” and treated by many  as a biblical text is not fit for purpose in the way it regards women.

I’m a British woman and prefer my Constitution which takes account of changing social norms and mores. You, a Scottish man, may well feel differently.

[graham]

Nov 28, 2022 23:52:09 GMT @isa said:

Nov 28, 2022 23:38:11 GMT mercian said:

I seem to remember that if the England football team does well (which it is so far) there is a polling benefit to the government of the time. Perhaps because of a general feel-good factor?

I think that was the case in 1966, where LAB got a majority of 97 around the time of the World Cup win. I know England did very well against Iran, playing some lovely stuff, (the two goals conceded were annoying and arguably avoidable, though), but the USA match was pretty dire. I certainly didn't come out of that one feeling on top of the world.

Not so - the 1966 GE was held on 31st March - 4 months before the World Cup win.

[oldnat]

Nov 28, 2022 23:12:03 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 28, 2022 21:38:52 GMT oldnat said:

Indeed, and quite rightly so. However, do you prefer the UK system where there is no constitution, and hand picked judges are also free to interpret the law and constitution as they see fit?

Hand picked judges? You are normally a stickler for the facts:
www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

And their rulings are non-political, whether anyone likes them or not. They have certainly annoyed the Conservative government on a number of occasions, notably over Johnson's illegal prorogation of parliament. The ruling on the the Scottish independence referendum issue was legally uncontroversial and expected whatever the fiery politics of it. 

P.s. I would also like some codification of the UK constitution, mainly to curtail the extreme power of the executive, although a rigid inflexible one like the US constitution is not the answer either. The UK helped draft a pretty good constitution for the Federal Republic of Germany after WWII; pity we can't manage the same for ourselves.  

Good to see that you disagree with @crofty's ludicrous suggestion that anyone supporting the UK Union must endorse all its current arrangements.

The arrangements for selecting SC judges are certainly more appropriate than the US arrangements, where party political preferences are paramount. However, they still ensure that the UK Lord Chancellor need do no more than consult on the appointments. Constitutionally, s/he can ignore all such consultations, and appoint those attuned politically in the "correct" way.

I totally agree that rigidly maintaining constitutional arrangements for a Union created in the 18th century seems nonsensical in the 21st.

However, I think you too narrowly restrict your usage of "political" to suggest only a political party partisan stance. It can also include assumptions made by the dominant elite in a polity - regardless of minor differences they might have over tactical preferences.

For example, whether the UK Parliament had the sole right to authorise a referendum on Scots indy, wasn't "uncontroversial". If it had been, the SC would not have taken the decision to consider the Lord Advocate's submission. It rejected the UKGov's arguments and decided to remove the controversy as to whether the UK was a "voluntary union" or not. It isn't, under UK law.

The SC's further extension of its ruling to say that self-determination, in international law, only applies where the territory concerned is a "colony" or oppressed" was not required of it, and may not be agreed in courts which actually rule on international law, where the definitions of "colony" and "oppressed" may be interpreted differently.

[oldnat]

Nov 28, 2022 23:52:09 GMT @isa said:

Nov 28, 2022 23:38:11 GMT mercian said:

I seem to remember that if the England football team does well (which it is so far) there is a polling benefit to the government of the time. Perhaps because of a general feel-good factor?

I think that was the case in 1966, where LAB got a majority of 97 around the time of the World Cup win. I know England did very well against Iran, playing some lovely stuff, (the two goals conceded were annoying and arguably avoidable, though), but the USA match was pretty dire. I certainly didn't come out of that one feeling on top of the world.

It amazes me that this nonsense still survives.

1966 General Election was 31 March 1966
The 1966 World Cup was played between 11 -30 July.

[oldnat]

Nov 29, 2022 0:37:26 GMT ladyvalerie said:

Nov 28, 2022 21:38:52 GMT oldnat said:

Indeed, and quite rightly so. However, do you prefer the UK system where there is no constitution, and hand picked judges are also free to interpret the law and constitution as they see fit?

It is clear to me that the American Constitution, set up by “the founding fathers” and treated by many  as a biblical text is not fit for purpose in the way it regards women.

I’m a British woman and prefer my Constitution which takes account of changing social norms and mores. You, a Scottish man, may well feel differently.

As a "British woman" you are totally happy with a constitutional arrangement that entitles a UKGov, elected with a large majority by c.33% of the electorate, to wipe out all the gains made by women over the last century and more, to be removed by a simple majority in the UK HoC.

I'd rather look to Ireland, where the people have amended their constitution from the archaic "social norms and mores" they once had, and which can't be reversed by a simple majority in their Parliament.

Well done you!

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2022 0:48:40 GMT graham said:

Nov 28, 2022 23:52:09 GMT @isa said:

I think that was the case in 1966, where LAB got a majority of 97 around the time of the World Cup win. I know England did very well against Iran, playing some lovely stuff, (the two goals conceded were annoying and arguably avoidable, though), but the USA match was pretty dire. I certainly didn't come out of that one feeling on top of the world.

Not so - the 1966 GE was held on 31st March - 4 months before the World Cup win.

Basking in the glory? I'm afraid I was only 7 at the time, so my memory is a little hazy. Forgivable in the circumstances, I trust. I got the election result from the school library which had bound editions of Keesing's Contemporary Archives - a sort of 1970s internet.

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2022 1:04:08 GMT oldnat said:

Nov 28, 2022 23:52:09 GMT @isa said:

I think that was the case in 1966, where LAB got a majority of 97 around the time of the World Cup win. I know England did very well against Iran, playing some lovely stuff, (the two goals conceded were annoying and arguably avoidable, though), but the USA match was pretty dire. I certainly didn't come out of that one feeling on top of the world.

It amazes me that this nonsense still survives.

1966 General Election was 31 March 1966
The 1966 World Cup was played between 11 -30 July.

Please see my earlier response to graham. I did say "around the time". I actually feel quite chuffed to have amazed you. I'm sure that won't have happened often on your lofty pedestal.

Apologies if that seems a tad uncharitable, but I've had a bellyful of some of the b*ll*cks I've seen on here in the last 24 hours.

[robbiealive]

Nov 29, 2022 1:16:56 GMT oldnat said:

Nov 29, 2022 0:37:26 GMT ladyvalerie said:

It is clear to me that the American Constitution, set up by “the founding fathers” and treated by many  as a biblical text is not fit for purpose in the way it regards women.

I’m a British woman and prefer my Constitution which takes account of changing social norms and mores. You, a Scottish man, may well feel differently.

As a "British woman" you are totally happy with a constitutional arrangement that entitles a UKGov, elected with a large majority by c.33% of the electorate, to wipe out all the gains made by women over the last century and more, to be removed by a simple majority in the UK HoC.

I'd rather look to Ireland, where the people have amended their constitution from the archaic "social norms and mores" they once had, and which can't be reversed by a simple majority in their Parliament.

Well done you!

God knows how many times you've posted on this site today but your incessant posting does not entitle you to engage in crass, boorish & self-righteous posturing. You pretend to be asking a question of Lady V (in a sentence which has no question mark) but in fact you're telling her what she thinks. If you had bothered to read her post you would have realised that she was comparing the codified constitutional arrangements in the USA, which have just led to the anihilation of women's rights at a stroke by a bench dominated by right-wing, religious fanatics, with those constitutional arrangements which in practice, if not in theory,  prevail in this country and which in effect protect women's rights. 
Your current preoccupation with constitutionalism presumably arises from yr anger at the recent decision by the Supreme Court & a belief that a codifided constitution would enable further referendums on Scotland's future. I think you have made a number of questionable assumptions on the subject of (UK) constitutionalism to which I shall return if I can be effing bothered.

[robbiealive]

With respect to @crossbat's comment on the LOC echo chamber. There were just over 200 posts today. (My count was v rapid).

There is room for interpretation but my count is 86 Labour posts, 42 "other" including one or two posts by those LOCs who cannot make their minds up & Carfrew 22 posts (!) who seems more ROC than LOC to me but we count as other.

Plus the following stridently anti-Labour voters

Lexiteer 16. Colin 9. OldNat 17 Mercian 10

So 86 Labour. 64 Other. 52 Anti-Labour.

84 posts, or getting on for half, were contributed by 6 posters! of which 52 are anti-Labour, plus Carfrew (22) & Crossbat (10). Some LOC echo chamber.

[moby]

Nov 28, 2022 17:19:08 GMT oldnat said:

Nov 28, 2022 16:43:00 GMT moby said:

Yes I do lack knowledge on voting systems. I think we have something called the additional member system in the Senedd. My point though doesn't benefit from getting into the weeds of that. Don't you vote for indy parties then?

Indeed I do - and both SNP and SGP have different party lines on a number of issues, and their internal wranglings are just as robust as in other parties, though dwarfed by those of some of their voters on social media (just as on here).

That you are ignorant of them doesn't give your silly "Midwich Cuckoos" comparison any meaning, point, relevance or value.

It was an exaggeration granted but there are always different perspectives and this is mine...... Relative to what Starmer has to do to get elected in contrast the SNP leadership seem able to govern with little real scrutiny, (on this forum anyway) and generally achieve electoral success by just turning on the anti Westminster grievance machine; they ramp up the rhetoric and bobs your uncle, you all turn into the little blue eye blond children pointing at London. From this position of relative advantage as you wave your (we're leaving the Union get out of jail card), part 2 is to then rip into Labour for it's inadequacies and inconsistencies to stymie any hope of a comeback in Scotland. Its a bit galling really though because in England and Wales, (Plaid are pretty crap) under the fptp voting system Labour is what we have to change things. Your narrative therefore grates a tad and does seem a bit....look what you are stuck with down there and by the way we're getting out. This selfish aspect of Scottish nationalism has also had real consequences for progressive politics in rUK. Having the Tories in power south of the border suits the SNPs objectives well and it seems this matters to them more than the greater good for rUK. March 1979 ushered in 18 years of Tory Govmt; December 2019 gave Johnson his big moment to wreck any chance of a decent outcome with the EU. Due to self interest in furthering their indy cause the SNP helped facilitate these setbacks for progressive politics.

[Danny]

Diptheria gate seems to have caught the headlines. Happily the minister assures us the nation is not now facing an epidemic of Diptheria because the childhood vaccine for same actually works in the way many hoped the covid vacine would but did not. The Diptheria one given in childhood offers lifelong protection against infection.

Meanwhile, there seems to be talk the people illegally detained at Manston are now entitled to compensation for their illegal imprisonment there. presumably thats before we get onto the question of whether their being there was deliberate government policy, to deliberately not process their claims so they would be stuck in detention forever.

Especially since so many of them would turn out to be entitled to assylum. I heard a very specious argument by the government yesterday, that if the threat to applicants was from criminals in their home country rather than their government, then they were not entitled to assylum because it wasnt the government action they were fleeing. As if a government is not responsible for the safety of its citizens and to blame if there is no guarantee of safety for whatever reason.

I presume there is a faction which is pleased at ill treatment of these immigrants. But those presumably will be rather upset it has all gone horribly wrong and the government may now be forced to treat them nicely, even give them money. Not going to attract their vote then. While those who feel the immigrants should always have been treated better, maybe even used to solve the labour shortage since they are here anyway, arent going to feel like voting Braverman either. She has succeeded in alienating both camps?


Meanwhile the general shortage of housing has a new wrinkle, as someone is saying we need homes for the Ukrainian refugees rather than just putting them in well wishers spare rooms. Ok for a few weeks, but this war may last a year or more at the current rate, since we arent giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to end it quickly. The deliberately created shortage of housing in the Uk was always a conservative policy. It benefits the haves as their asset prices soar and the rents they can extract shoot ever higher. But the haves are starting to understand their children and grandchildren are numbered amongst the have nots. Is it really worth having a home which is very valuable but whose value you cannot utilise all the time you are alive and so living in it, when the cost of this is your kids being unable to get a home at all? The obvious answer is no, and voters are coming to understand that. Its one of the long term trends steadily shrinking the conservative vote.

As well as reducing the competitiveness of Uk industry because all workers have to be paid extra to cover the costs of housing.

[steve]

crossbat11


"One of the aspects of the discussions on this forum that has always fascinated me is the perception that the ROC contributors clearly have of themselves that they are a beleaguered minority, kicking back bravely at a left wing echo chamber and the overall left-leaning groupthink that pervades it. "

It's performative victimhood it's prevalent amongst the right nationalist movements throughout the world.

Brexit was based on it " coming over here stealing our jobs"

The Orange insurrectionist gop is based on it " murderers and rapists"

The Tory regime is based on it " invasion of our borders"


It's an extension of othering where despite claiming to be the majority and being downtrodden by progressives and the " citizens of nowhere" and dark establishment forces their leadership is normally vastly wealthy and has benefited from all the advantages that wealth brings.
Their chosen target for resentment tend to be those who haven't had their life benefits or have a more intellectually rigorous approach.

[alec]

robbiealive - "Plus the following stridently anti-Labour voters

Lexiteer 16....."

Surely some mistake?

Starmer is Continuity Rishi!

Reeves is the New Hunt!

Labour are New Model Tories Mk3?

Everything I say 'is shite'?

No?

[steve]

oldnat
Obviously I can't speak for everyone who on balance wants the union to continue.
But personally I'd like to see a federal system with members of the constitution nations elected to a federal government of the UK by PR.
Given this is essentially liberal democrat policy it's not remotely accepting the status quo.

[alec]

crossbat11 - quite. You can add 'when I misquote you and repeat false facts and you correct me, you're trolling me' to that list.

It's an invention. A desperate desire to slide away from the fact everything your side stands for has fallen apart by pretending it's the world that is against you, rather than accepting your side being a bit useless. For some, that morphs into trying to kid yourself that the other side is just the same as your side.

It's a bit like watching children having one of those very childish arguments in a school playground.

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2022 0:37:26 GMT ladyvalerie said:

It is clear to me that the American Constitution, set up by “the founding fathers” and treated by many  as a biblical text is not fit for purpose in the way it regards women. I’m a British woman and prefer my Constitution which takes account of changing social norms and mores.

Hmm. The american constitution was written at a time both women and blacks had far lower status. Neither one was probably high on the priority list of the constitutional convention trying to write a constitution for the new USA. What they were concerned about was protecting the rights of the separate states which had very different histories and ideas how to live. The constitution was designed to protect their individual rights to be different, and prevent a central government stealing those rights. Its the sort of arrangement Scotland might like. England could have its own parliament, and Scots could never be dragged out of the EU without their consent. If you recall, EU legislation has been held up by the regions of belgium or luxembourg or wherever it is, because their constitution requires its constituents to have full veto rights. Thats another decent constitution.

But as to women's rights, the US constitution was arguably twisted beyond the words it contains to grant rights about abortion. Now that is much more how the UK constitution works, where the politicians of today change its meaning to suit themselves. The change in the US is not about what is written in the constitution but about the views of the rulers of the US at this time. Opinion has changed since the Roe v Wade decision, and the rulers have therefore changed their interpretation. To be honest, that is really democracy in action. However, the change in federal law is not binding on the states as it might be in a similar situation in the Uk under our constitution. Here abortion would be banned by westminster throughout the nation, and that's that. There, it has simply become a state by state decision. Women or blacks or whoever in those states still have the ability to fight there for rightss they believe they should have, and there is some indication in election results recently that is exactly what they have been doing. democrats did remarkably well in the recent elections, way better than history suggests they should for a party in their circumstances. It seems likely the supreme court decision won them votes from people previously too complacent to vote.

[steve]

Regarding essential foreign workers.

Since Brexit there's being a reduction by 4000 in the number of European union citizens working as doctors in the U.K. Overall the reduction in European union citizens working in the nhs is in excess of 30,000.
There's a net reduction overall of around 50,000 European union citizens living here each year since the Brexit vote.

Given that the vast majority would have been awarded permanent right to remain under the terms of departure you have to assume that the attraction of remaining in a hostile environment anti free movement failing state aren't that great.

Faith spoke to many of her Irish colleagues who were leaving from one of the UK's flagship nhs trusts, despite the fact that the common travel area meant their status was essentially unchanged and they retained their European union citizens rights to free movement stolen from U.K. citizens they still left in their dozens.
The consensus view was that the casual hostility towards those with a foreign accent and the insular border closed nationalist government and media just didn't make it an attractive place to stay.

They had widely needed skills and the rights necessary to go elsewhere freely in Europe to use them so they did. Or retirement was approaching and like the vast majority of other European union citizens they chose to exercise their freedoms to spend it in somewhere nicer.

Self inflicted damage that both major parties seem keen to perpetuate.

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2022 6:49:37 GMT moby said:

Relative to what Starmer has to do to get elected in contrast the SNP leadership seem able to govern with little real scrutiny, (on this forum anyway) and generally achieve electoral success by just turning on the anti Westminster grievance machine; they ramp up the rhetoric and bobs your uncle, you all turn into the little blue eye blond children pointing at London. From this position of relative advantage as you wave your (we're leaving the Union get out of jail card), part 2 is to then rip into Labour for it's inadequacies and inconsistencies to stymie any hope of a comeback in Scotland.

Surely Starmer is in exactly the same position as the SNP. Both are benfitting from the unpopularity of the westminster government. Both hope to attain sovereign power for themselves. The unpopularity of the current UK government is driving support for both lab and SNP, not anything either of those parties has done.

Having the Tories in power south of the border suits the SNPs objectives well and it seems this matters to them more than the greater good for rUK.

obviously the analogy breaks down when we consider exactly how SNP and lab might be able to replace CON, but both are interested in electoral success not in the greater good of the UK. Con abandoned its principles when it supported Brexit. It reckoned it a good bargain to attain 14 years in power.  Lab in 97 promised to follow conservative policies if elected, and Starmer seems to be doing the same now. If anyone believes con are doing bad things, and it seems many do, then lab is acting in a wholly unprincipled way placing its electoral chances ahead of the good of the nation.  They dont seem to realise we despise them for doing it. Or maybe they dont care, because they know we have no way to vote in anyone else.

[alec]

Interesting paper measuring years of life lost (YLL) from covid set against other leading mortality indicators in the US across the first two years of the pandemic - www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2226

It's from the US, so with a slightly different dynamic due to different vaccines uptake, but it calculates an average YLL per covid death in year 1 of the pandemic at 18.8 years, rising to 25.5 years in year 2, as deaths shifted to younger age cohorts.

It would be fascinating to see the same analysis from the UK, but this does provide solid evidence that dismisses the early statements from a number of ignorant sources to the effect that covid was only serious for people 'who were going to die soon anyway'.

In my ideal world, anyone who made much stupid statements should be sentenced to a reduction in their lifespan of no less than 18.8 years, every time they said it. Because they're going to die soon anyway.

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2022 7:28:42 GMT steve said:

Given that the vast majority would have been awarded permanent right to remain under the terms of departure you have to assume that the attraction of remaining in a hostile environment anti free movement failing state aren't that great.

Not so sure. The great advantage of freedom of movement is exactly that people could come and go as they choose. So you could come to the Uk short term, but have the right to stay longer if maybe you like it or found a partner here. People coming here didnt pick this as a place for the rest of their lives as most ROW immigrants did. EU arrivals were always much more likely to go back to their home countries. Brexit has approximately guaranteed their right to stay if already settled here, but it has cut off the supply of new arrivals, and because this is no longer on terms where the choice lies with the person not the state, it simply is not as attractive. EU citizens have better options than Britain. Meanwhile the original arrivals are simply leaving when it suits them, as was always happening. What we have done in brexit is replace migrant workers who are likely to go home, with migrant workers who are planning to stay permanently in the UK and need looking after in retirement. So maybe all we are seeing is the natural churn in EU migrants which was always the case. It was always a lie these were migrants threatening to swamp the Uk, but instead they were ideal temporary workers.

[Mr Poppy]

Times article (being widely reused by other press*) on Braverman finally getting round to copying NewLAB policy:

Suella Braverman wants Albanian migrants who cross Channel in small boats on fast track to deportation

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-wants-albanian-migrants-who-cross-channel-in-small-boats-on-fast-track-to-deportation-zk5frx7s5

Why has it taken this long?!?? Anyway, good to see they are finally doing something about it and making it harder for the "do bad" lawyers to facilitate the business models of the criminal gangs involved in human trafficking. 

* non-paywall link: www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/home-office-channel-new-labour-suella-braverman-government-b1043342.html

[domjg]

Nov 29, 2022 7:46:26 GMT Danny said:

Nov 29, 2022 7:28:42 GMT steve said:

Given that the vast majority would have been awarded permanent right to remain under the terms of departure you have to assume that the attraction of remaining in a hostile environment anti free movement failing state aren't that great.

Not so sure. The great advantage of freedom of movement is exactly that people could come and go as they choose. So you could come to the Uk short term, but have the right to stay longer if maybe you like it or found a partner here. People coming here didnt pick this as a place for the rest of their lives as most ROW immigrants did. EU arrivals were always much more likely to go back to their home countries. Brexit has approximately guaranteed their right to stay if already settled here, but it has cut off the supply of new arrivals, and because this is no longer on terms where the choice lies with the person not the state, it simply is not as attractive. EU citizens have better options than Britain. Meanwhile the original arrivals are simply leaving when it suits them, as was always happening. What we have done in brexit is replace migrant workers who are likely to go home, with migrant workers who are planning to stay permanently in the UK and need looking after in retirement. So maybe all we are seeing is the natural churn in EU migrants which was always the case. It was always a lie these were migrants threatening to swamp the Uk, but instead they were ideal temporary workers.

Bingo. The concept of 'freedom of movement' was fundamentally misunderstood by those who are not mobile themselves and think instinctively in terms of people staying in one place long term. Some do of course but many, esp the younger European generation (generation EasyJet as some have named them) do not.

[Mr Poppy]

'Most Important Election Issues' infographic from R&W's latest. Note Immigration is 3rd most important issue at 28% (+2 on the week). Folks can look for themselves lower down the list for things hardly anyone is interested in (although likely to be high variation between the nations on something like thinking Scottish Independence is an important issue)

Attachment Deleted

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2022 7:40:03 GMT alec said:

Interesting paper measuring years of life lost (YLL) from covid set against other leading mortality indicators in the US across the first two years of the pandemic - www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2226

It's from the US, so with a slightly different dynamic due to different vaccines uptake, but it calculates an average YLL per covid death in year 1 of the pandemic at 18.8 years, rising to 25.5 years in year 2, as deaths shifted to younger age cohorts.

It would be fascinating to see the same analysis from the UK, but this does provide solid evidence that dismisses the early statements from a number of ignorant sources to the effect that covid was only serious for people 'who were going to die soon anyway'.

Really? Did you read it? I quote:

"The YLL associated with most of the leading causes of U.S. death were stable across intervals (Table). Three of the four causes of death that exhibited larger than 10% changes in deaths across the study intervals had concordant changes in YLL. Specifically, YLL due to unintentional injuries increased by 10.5%, comparable to the 11.0% increase in unintentional injury deaths. Large and similar decreases in YLL and deaths were observed for influenza and pneumonia (YLL, −14.6%; deaths, −16.0%) and Alzheimer disease (YLL, −12.6; deaths, −14.2%). In contrast, despite 20.8% fewer COVID-19 deaths during March to December 2021 than during March to December 2020, YLL due to COVID-19 increased by 7.4% as the age distribution of decedents shifted downward (that is, to relatively younger persons); the median (interquartile range) age of COVID-19–involved deaths decreased from 78 years (68 to 87 years) to 69 years (59 to 80 years). Accordingly, YLL per COVID-19 death increased by 35.7% (Figure); YLL per death did not change by more than 2.2% for any other cause."

So between the first and second periods of the study loss of life years due to accidental deaths and injuries rose by 10%. Losses due to covid rose 7.5%. But on the other hand life years lost to Altzheimers decreased by 13%, to influenza fell 15%. So what it says is that in the second wave of the epidemic, there was more loss of life to covid but compensating this even more gain of life from those not dying from Altzheimers or flu. The rise in accidental injuries also seems to be concerning, suggesting disruption of people's lives caused more of this.

But these changes seem wholly consistent to me that covid deaths simply replaced people who would otherwise have died from Altzheimers, influenza or pneumonia. Dying from  influenza or pneumonia seems much the same as covid to me. Dying from covid might be preferable to years of Altzheimers!

There is another major flaw in the study. in the UK we know that a massive proportion of the first wave deaths (bit smaller second wave) came from care homes whose residents would indeed normally be very likely to die from Altzheimers or flu. if they died from covid first, it makes perfect sense that these already very sick people affected the statistics changing their cause of death. Unfortunately, the study assumes that anyone dying at a certain age had an average life expectancy. That is simply not true. Anyone in a care home has a far shorter life expectancy than an average person of the same age, being in the care home is already a marker of expected death within a year of entering it. The study fails to check the real life expectancy of those whi died in a particular year. Its highly likely the healthy ones responsible for boosting the average life expectancy never did die from covid either.  The ones who died were those dragging down the average life expectancy who would have died soon anyway.

In my ideal world, anyone who made much stupid statements should be sentenced to a reduction in their lifespan of no less than 18.8 years, every time they said it. Because they're going to die soon anyway.

The study doesnt show that at all. One might wonder how it got published, but this flaw has been present in previous work about life years lost to covid. I wonder why no one corrects such publications? Why people keep advancing them?

The study assumes the people who died from covid had an average life expectancy, whereas even the evidence in the study itself suggests covid deaths simply substituted other immedate causes of death.

[steve]

Danny

I think that's essentially an extension on my point and I agree with you.
Something that brexitanians always seemed to fail to grasp is the difference between free movement and immigration.
The clear indication of the difference is how few European union citizens have chosen over the last thirty years to remain permanently in the UK after retirement, clearly they had every right to but in common with British retirees before we had our rights stolen tens of thousands chose the South of Europe or their home counties to retire.

The UK was shall we say never inundated by European union retirees choosing to move here.
At peak over 30,000 UK retirees were moving to Spain to retire full of part time , making it the second largest UK citizen population outside of the uk.

Before brexitanians jump it's far harder post Brexit to do so and the number of UK retirees making the move has significantly reduced.

Oddly enough the number of Spanish retiring to the UK has remained at the similar  close to 0% it was before brexit.

[jib]

Amusing to read our resident Lib Dem with his anecdotal musings about the impact of Brexit and the "failing" state of the UK.

If there's one major factor responsible for failure of public services, regulation and regulated services in the UK now it is the 2010-15 coalition.

They didn't have the political "big boy pants" to rescind hard fought for legislation, they just defunded the public authorities and brought about their deregulated utopia that way.

Sh**sters.



Attachment Deleted

[crossbat11]

oldNat

Anent World Cups and politics.

The survival of nonsense is what sustains UKPR. Mercian's ongoing theory of the soothsaying powers of local council by-elections is a prime example. Nonsense and mythology are very durable political qualities!

As for the World Cup electoral elixir or poison theory, wasn't that founded on the 1970 Finals in Mexico, not the 1966 tournament? England's shock exit at the hands of West Germany in Mexico was alleged to have been part of the reason that Wilson's large poll leads evaporated in the election that followed only four days after the infamous defeat.

It was Peter Bonetti wot lost it!

[steve]

Those R@W figures.

If leaving the European union and immigration are lumped together as brexitanians clearly did the issue becomes the second most salient for Tory voters and third overall.

For those who don't want to admit the salience of the specific issue of the European union among Labour supporters it's in their top ten issues above pensions and crime and not far short of welfare. So maybe dial back on the no one's talking about it stuff.

Our departure from the European union is just as widely an issue of interest to the public as it was when the decision to hold the 2016 referendum was made and the on going slow motion train wreck isn't likely to make people lose interest.

[steve]

jib
Has someone bought you a red crayon?

Why have you a picture of two ex politicians from parties that neither of us supported at the time?

Is there some relevance?

Or is it just another brain fart?