18-OCT 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 28% / LDM 9% / REF 7%

[Danny]

Dec 13, 2023 16:49:35 GMT alec said:

Like my local village shop, there's a small group of around a dozen people I regularly see first thing when the Coop opens, usually masked. These are the folks who want to do the weekly shopping when the store is empty, and for reference, it's just over 2% of the village population, around 5% if you count the people who share households with them. But you'll not see any of them unless you're up in the dark the minute the shop opens.

I was amazed above that someone as busy as yourself, who spends a lot of time here but also apparently runs a full time business in the real world, had the time to watch all the covid tribunal evidence. Its not something you can just skim, they take so long to ask and answer questions its impossible to get the gist of it unless you concentrate on it. And now you tell us you have also been loitering in your local village counting exactly who uses the local shop.

I can tell you the number of people round here wearing masks is negligible.

I also think you're discounting the power of peer pressure.

Which acted throughout to force people to conform to wearing masks?

I'm a little surprised by some of the numbers in favour of closing things, but not that surprised. There's a much larger community of people out here who prefer to avoid constant infection than you think.

I'm not. They were subjected to three years intensive propaganda telling them this was about to kill them, when for the great majority they were never at risk.

[hireton]

The Tories are getting more bizarre by the day:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/13/badenoch-condemns-london-plague-study-after-mp-calls-it-woke-archaeology

[Danny]

Dec 13, 2023 17:06:52 GMT leftieliberal said:

I do, however, expect better of supposedly top-class journalists.

It's a waste of time expecting anything better from The Guardian; it's just the Daily Mail for lefties. I find the i the least objectionable of the LOC newspapers.

I heard Martin Lewis interviewed today, who is arguably the most respected journalist in the country. Certainly with regard to his specialty, financial news for ordinary people. He noted that proceeds from his website are used to fund staff working on the stories they cover, and that they can thus afford to spend massively more time reasearching the stories they think are important than can any newspaper nowadays. His accidental business model, which began as a small personal website somewhat like UKPR, where he posted the tips he came across in his work as a financial journalist, became rather profitable, because it was telling people stuff which immediately benefitted them financially. But this has essentially been ploughed back into maintaining quality. He explained he only sold it because it had grown so much he could no longer run it personally, but the sale was hedged around with conditions to ensure it would remain an impartial advisor. He still personally vets its content.

[johntel]

Dec 13, 2023 16:37:48 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - (from the DT) - "One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…"

Can't say for certain, but this is probably an example of typical of the laziness of the Telegraph, and to be fair, nearly every other mainstream outlet. The central point is that much of the media has only covered the inquiry seriously once the politicians and key figures were on stage. They want to report on whatsapp messages and such like, but were missing in action throughout the weeks of detailed technical evidence.

On the technicalities, there were extensive discussions about the QLA lives lost measure during these earlier sessions. One of the points made very strongly, which is completely valid, is that the QLA measures are just another model. There's nothing particularly rigorous or inherently accurate about them, but they are a useful indicative tool. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, they are a tool of distinctly limited value, because we don't have any good quality data about future impacts of infection. What we do have is data from SARS1 survivors, which suggest previously fit and healthy younger individuals who survived a single SARS1 infection now have average life expectancy of around 60 - 65 years, 10 - 15 years below their uninfected peers (this data is limited, as the funding for the longditudinal studies was shut down after the disease was eradicated) and we know that SARS1 survivors suffer from a range of ongoing, persistent symptoms 18 years after recovery.

When the quoted study was drafted, the authors had access to the data from SARS1 (and MERS, another SARS type coronavirus with similar long term health impacts) but they had zero knowledge of the long term impacts of SARS-CoV-2. We now have a great deal more data, none of which is very encouraging, but we're still less than 4 years out. Using QLA measures in these circumstances is deeply flawed, because it's pretty obvious to anyone following the science the SARS-CoV-2 is leading a high levels of morbidity and mortality way beyond the acute phase, whereas the study only focused on deaths and illness in the acute phase.

Also, where you quote -
"According to Sunak, by the beginning of May, 30 per cent of all cases originated in hospitals, a proportion that rose to 80 per cent by June 2020.

By June 18, Sage minutes acknowledged that the ‘errors’ meant that for some time they had in all probability been overestimating the rate of transmission”, making it look ‘artificially high’.”"

I'd suggest this is something of a red herring. Sunak leans heavily on the proportion of hospital acquired 'cases' as evidence there was less transmission than was thought at the time, but he's forgetting two things. First, these weren't cases, but confirmed PCR test results, of which there were far higher testing proportions in hospitals. Second, from April 2020, we had the ONS Infection Survey, still considered to be the world's best measure of population infection. This was done using PCR confirmed tests on a randomly selected and weighted proportion of the population. It was nothing to do with hospital acquired infections, and it went on the form the basis for the statistical extrapolation of the R number.

Basically, Sunak is talking various shades of bollocks in an attempt to save his own skin, and the Telegraph journalists are too lazy and/or biased to actually dig into the detail.

alec et al

This is obviously an important yet very complex point. It leads to me ask - What's the point of spending all this money and time on an enquiry if it doesn't dig deeply into this kind of scientific question so we can learn for next time? It makes me the think the whole thing is just a circus really. 

[hireton]

Some polling on Palestinian opinion about the current war:

Link to the poll here:

pcpsr.org/en/node/961

[jib]

Dec 13, 2023 17:03:08 GMT neilj said:

Redfield Wilton Wales

'Labour lead the Conservatives by 25% in Wales.

Wales Westminster VI (10-11 December):

Labour 47% (+3)
Conservatives 22% (-2)
Plaid Cymru 11% (-2)
Reform UK 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 6% (+2)
Green 3% (-2)
Other 0% (-1)

Changes +/- 12-13 November'

Nice to see them so low. It's unfortunate that there are still some who are prepared to support them, but confident no MPs in 2024 from Wales.

[crossbat11]

Dec 13, 2023 21:57:38 GMT jib said:

Dec 13, 2023 17:03:08 GMT neilj said:

Redfield Wilton Wales

'Labour lead the Conservatives by 25% in Wales.

Wales Westminster VI (10-11 December):

Labour 47% (+3)
Conservatives 22% (-2)
Plaid Cymru 11% (-2)
Reform UK 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 6% (+2)
Green 3% (-2)
Other 0% (-1)

Changes +/- 12-13 November'

Nice to see them so low. It's unfortunate that there are still some who are prepared to support them, but confident no MPs in 2024 from Wales.

But you must be disappointed at that VI figure for the Tories, surely?

[Dave]

Dec 13, 2023 9:32:44 GMT shevii said:

Dec 13, 2023 8:17:04 GMT barbara said:

Couldn't have said it better. This is the worst time for people to stand on their ideological purity. Plenty of time for that once we have a Labour majority.

....  I can understand getting rid of this Tory government is a priority but it's not the only thing that matters.

A priority?  For me it's the priority.  

[alec]

Danny - "Again you make this same class error. Effects on subsets of people badly affected by any disease cannot simply be projected onto the population as a whole. It is VERY important to determine what really happens to a population as a whole, not just to some small subset......And we also know it mysteriously disappeared...."

Try not to be so judgemental. No one has made an error here. You're correct in identifying the need to understand disease not just by severe cases, and it's true that most new outbreaks of any disease appear more serious at first, when severe cases are identified, before wider less serious community cases are discovered and accounted for. But not for SARS1.

You clearly aren't aware of the huge public health effort that went into containing SARS. It was truly deadly as a disease, with an initial fatality rate of 50% which later reduced to 10% by the time the outbreak was contained. And it was contained - it didn't 'mysteriously disappear'. There was absolutely no mystery whatsoever about it, but rather a well documented and massive public health effort. Because of the terrible severity, every outbreak was subject to rigorous contact tracing, so a very high proportion of all cases (most likely very close to 100%) were identified and quarantined, so the final figure of 10% fatality is very likely to be highly accurate.

[alec]

johntel - "What's the point of spending all this money and time on an enquiry if it doesn't dig deeply into this kind of scientific question so we can learn for next time? It makes me the think the whole thing is just a circus really."

The point I was making was that the inquiry has done exactly that, except the media haven't bothered reporting on it until the politicians appeared and there were some juicy whatsapp messages to report on.

I can't say how well the inquiry team will handle the data, but they have trawled through an awful lot of the science and asked some searching questions of the experts. You just won't get that from the UK press, because the UK press hates technical detail.

[jib]

Dec 13, 2023 22:11:13 GMT crossbat11 said:

Dec 13, 2023 21:57:38 GMT jib said:

Nice to see them so low. It's unfortunate that there are still some who are prepared to support them, but confident no MPs in 2024 from Wales.

But you must be disappointed at that VI figure for the Tories, surely?

Liberals / Tories = all the same to me old boy.

[Dave]

Dec 13, 2023 9:32:44 GMT shevii said:

In the current political situation there has never been a better time to vote for what you actually want because Labour are still going to get a majority.

The election is definitely won already is it? I hope so, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that it is a nailed on certainty.  It has to be worked for.  

I like you as a poster, but if Labour do win it will be because millions of us got off our arses and voted for them and got this rankest, most horrible of governments out whilst allowing you the luxury of keeping your political purism.  In addition, it appears that this line of yours I've quoted seems to be or come close to encouraging people who would otherwise vote Labour, to not vote for them.  Such a call repeated often enough in the right places, by those with similar opinions as yours will not have an iota of effect on the Tory vote but would surely suppress the Labour vote.   That means in effect such calls are doing the Tories' job for them and helping increase their chances of staying in power.  Genuine question: would you be happy with that outcome? 

By all means encourage others to vote for who they actually want to vote for, but please own the potential consequences of that call. Labour are the only alternative government to the Tories.  It's either them, or the Tories.  End of.  They will only win if millions of us do get of our aforementioned arses.  You'd better hope that we do that otherwise we will have another Tory government and if we do, then not that it matters, but I'd not be interested in hearing any moaning about them from those who have in effect helped their cause.  

This post might seem strong in tone, but it merely reflects the frustration I have at seeing a chance after 13 long years, of getting rid of this mob, and being absolutely determined to play my part in doing that to see others talk as you talk.  Another genuine question: how much do you want them out?  

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 20:27:26 GMT hireton said:

The Tories are getting more bizarre by the day:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/13/badenoch-condemns-london-plague-study-after-mp-calls-it-woke-archaeology

As the total sample size of both plague and non-plague deaths was 145 (49 from plague) and  I think it's safe to say that those of African heritage would have been a pretty small percentage of the population in those days, it seems invalid to draw any conclusions because of the small sample size. To suggest as the authors apparently do that any apparent greater mortality amongst Africans was because of 'structural racism' is ridiculous. Even if (BIG if) the conclusions were true it could be because of different susceptibilities to the disease. Plague was more or less endemic for hundreds of years so the native population would have had some immunity.

Whether politicians should be concerned about stuff published in an obscure academic journal is another matter.

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 20:33:34 GMT johntel said:

Dec 13, 2023 16:37:48 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - (from the DT) - "One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)

The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…"
...

alec et al

This is obviously an important yet very complex point. It leads to me ask - What's the point of spending all this money and time on an enquiry if it doesn't dig deeply into this kind of scientific question so we can learn for next time? It makes me the think the whole thing is just a circus really. 

The barrister probably shut it down because he hadn't researched that stuff, or didn't understand it. I doubt that many lawyers have much more than an intelligent layman's understanding of statistics and so on.

EDIT: alec has been following things more closely than I have and has another explanation - that this stuff has already been covered

[mercian]

Dec 13, 2023 22:36:31 GMT Dave said:

Dec 13, 2023 9:32:44 GMT shevii said:

 Labour are the only alternative government to the Tories.  It's either them, or the Tories.  End of.  They will only win if millions of us do get of our aforementioned arses.  

I shouldn't bother. A Labour victory is nailed on. One more vote won't make any difference. 

[crossbat11]

Dec 13, 2023 22:27:20 GMT jib said:

Dec 13, 2023 22:11:13 GMT crossbat11 said:

But you must be disappointed at that VI figure for the Tories, surely?

Liberals / Tories = all the same to me old boy.

That's as may be, although I think the current Lib Dem party is a much different animal to one that Clegg led into the coalition with Cameron, but I'd be interested in the answer to this question though.

In the significant number of seats where the Lib Dems are either fighting off a Tory challenge or where they are trying to unseat the sitting Tory MP, would you prefer the Tory MP/candidate to win?

I mean, the results in these seats may well determine whether we have another Tory Government or not, so can't be dismissed as irrelevant.

Who is your dog in those fights?

[mark61]

There are some it seems who like to place their vote at a General election with the Party that closely correlates with their values and political views, a rational approach, others view it as a vote for a choice of Govt. which in a first past the post GB is a choice between Conservative and Labour.   I fall into the second camp maybe If the choice didn't seem existential this time I might be more inclined to be picky, but that to be frank feels like a luxury I can't afford.  

[jib]

Dec 13, 2023 22:54:18 GMT crossbat11 said:

That's as may be, although I think the current Lib Dem party is a much different animal to one that Clegg led into the coalition with Cameron, but I'd be interested in the answer to this question though.

In the significant number of seats where the Lib Dems are either fighting off a Tory challenge or where they are trying to unseat the sitting Tory MP, would you prefer the Tory MP/candidate to win?

I mean, the results in these seats may well determine whether we have another Tory Government or not, so can't be dismissed as irrelevant.

Who is your dog in those fights?

Quite frankly, if the Lib Dems lose all their seats, I'll be happy.

I'd prefer a Labour /SNP /Plaid / SDLP alliance to any dalliance with those f*****s.

I really do hate them after 2010, and latterly their Bollox opportunism.

[graham]

Dec 13, 2023 22:54:18 GMT crossbat11 said:

Dec 13, 2023 22:27:20 GMT jib said:

Liberals / Tories = all the same to me old boy.

That's as may be, although I think the current Lib Dem party is a much different animal to one that Clegg led into the coalition with Cameron, but I'd be interested in the answer to this question though.

In the significant number of seats where the Lib Dems are either fighting off a Tory challenge or where they are trying to unseat the sitting Tory MP, would you prefer the Tory MP/candidate to win?

I mean, the results in these seats may well determine whether we have another Tory Government or not, so can't be dismissed as irrelevant.

Who is your dog in those fights?

Doubtless the NSDAP today would be a different animal, but I would have no inclination to vote for it.

[steve]

crossbat11
I think he'd rather see refuk win.

It's a unique form of cognitive dissonance that sees hundreds of lib dem wins at the local elections this year, control of councils, like mine that we've never controlled before, landslide victories in parliamentary by elections and 13 council by election gains since May alone, more than any other party and yet still bangs on that no one votes lib d.    It's just bonkers.

It doesn't matter how many insults or how many times he posts pictures of Nick Clegg, facts are facts.

The lib dems now are an anti Conservative pro progressive party, committed to greater internationalism , a fairer more equal society , a humane and inclusive migration policy and electoral reform to improve our democratic representation.

Now whatever Jib is he clearly isn't a lib dem party member the reason I joined the lib dems after a decade of Labour party membership in 2017 was because it was a better fit for my  views about progressive cooperative politics, if it wasn't or ceased to be I wouldn't be a member.

The party has moved on I don't think our family friend Sammy who is our parliamentary candidate was even old enough to vote in 2010 , the vast majority of our elected representatives at local and national level weren't in office until after 2015, frankly I don't care that Nick Clegg was a dick, I didn't vote for him or the lib dems in 2010, or 2015.

Maybe Mr Jones could find a new hobby, stamp collecting or train spotting it might be good for his mental well being

And take Graham along he sees Nazis everywhere.

[graham]

Dec 13, 2023 23:15:26 GMT steve said:

crossbat11
I think he'd rather see refuk win.

It's a unique form of cognitive dissonance that sees hundreds of lib dem wins at the local elections this year, control of councils, like mine that we've never controlled before, landslide victories in parliamentary by elections and 13 council by election gains since May alone, more than any other party and yet still bangs on that no one votes lib d.    It's just bonkers.

It doesn't matter how many insults or how many times he posts pictures of Nick Clegg, facts are facts.

The lib dems now are an anti Conservative pro progressive party, committed to greater internationalism , a fairer more equal society , a humane and inclusive migration policy and electoral reform to improve our democratic representation.

Now whatever Jib is he clearly isn't a lib dem party member the reason I joined the lib dems after a decade of Labour party membership in 2017 was because it was a better fit for my  views about progressive cooperative politics, if it wasn't or ceased to be I wouldn't be a member.

Maybe he could find a new hobby, stamp collecting or train spotting it might be good for his mental well being

And take Graham along he sees Nazis everywhere.

'A fairer more equal society.' Perhaps that explains why the LDs voted in favour of imposing prohibitive fees during the Coalition years to deter workers from bringing cases to Employment Tribunals. Frankly it was all too reminiscent of what might be expected from the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.

[steve]

Graham you do realise it isn't 2013 now.

On 26 July 2017 the Supreme Court declared the Fees Order to be an unlawful interference with the common law right of access to justice, and quashed it. Employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal claims no longer attract fees.

On 15 November 2017 the Government announced the roll out of the employment tribunal refund scheme via which those who paid fees will be reimbursed.

[jib]

Dec 13, 2023 23:27:00 GMT graham said:

Dec 13, 2023 23:15:26 GMT steve said:

crossbat11
I think he'd rather see refuk win.

It's a unique form of cognitive dissonance that sees hundreds of lib dem wins at the local elections this year, control of councils, like mine that we've never controlled before, landslide victories in parliamentary by elections and 13 council by election gains since May alone, more than any other party and yet still bangs on that no one votes lib d.    It's just bonkers.

It doesn't matter how many insults or how many times he posts pictures of Nick Clegg, facts are facts.

The lib dems now are an anti Conservative pro progressive party, committed to greater internationalism , a fairer more equal society , a humane and inclusive migration policy and electoral reform to improve our democratic representation.

Now whatever Jib is he clearly isn't a lib dem party member the reason I joined the lib dems after a decade of Labour party membership in 2017 was because it was a better fit for my  views about progressive cooperative politics, if it wasn't or ceased to be I wouldn't be a member.

Maybe he could find a new hobby, stamp collecting or train spotting it might be good for his mental well being

And take Graham along he sees Nazis everywhere.

'A fairer more equal society.' Perhaps that explains why the LDs voted in favour of imposing prohibitive fees during the Coalition years to deter workers from bringing cases to Employment Tribunals. Frankly it was all too reminiscent of what might be expected from the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.

They showed their true colours didn't they! Davey, Clegg, Alexander. Should have been locked up with the phantom speeder Huhne.

I find my dear friends' insinuation of mental well being very worrying. I think his take must be; "You must think like me.......". No. Lib Dems ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. 

[ptarmigan]

Dec 13, 2023 15:02:03 GMT graham said:

I do become irritated when senior journalists post or talk gibberish.
In today's Guardian political podcast the paper's political editor - Kiran Stacy - reveals his ignorance of basic arithmetic. Whilst discussing last night's Commons vote which produced a Government majority of 44, he refers to the 29 Tory rebels who had abstained. He then goes on to say that were those 29 abstainers to vote against the Bill in January that the Government would be defeated. That is wrong!Were those rebel all to oppose next month the Government's majority would fall from 44 to 15. It might well be ,of course, that some Tories who supported the Government last night - such as Prit Patel, JRM , IDS and Andrea Jenkins (who was paired) will vote against next time - and that could put the majority in peril. Also Peter Bone voted for the Bill - but is likely to have disappeared by January!
I do,however, expect better of supposedly top-class journalists.

You're right of course. However, 56 is the government's working majority so if there are 29 Tory rebels then the govt could theoretically be defeated, so I wonder if he was thinking along these lines. I think in reality there would almost certainly need to be more than 29 rebels anyway as there are a few suspended Tories sitting as independents who will surely vote with the govt. 

[jib]

Dec 13, 2023 23:31:41 GMT steve said:

Graham you do realise it isn't 2013 now.

On 26 July 2017 the Supreme Court declared the Fees Order to be an unlawful interference with the common law right of access to justice, and quashed it. Employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal claims no longer attract fees.

On 15 November 2017 the Government announced the roll out of the employment tribunal refund scheme via which those who paid fees will be reimbursed.

It took the Tories to clean up the mess left by your friends.

At least you admit what a bunch of Toryist tw**s you were 2010-15.

[steve]

The republican congress members despite years of investigation and zero evidence of wrong doing by Jo Biden have voted unanimously to institute a formal impeachment enquiry.

It's an embarrassing travesty of the process.

youtu.be/Z8htrhPKgew?si=97dKR5YmE-IO8jex

[domjg]

steve the two of them are pro brexit britnats for whom the UK is the universe. Socialist maybe economically but ideally only for the natives. Internationalism of any kind, especially the European will be anathema to them.

They're 'closed' rather than 'open' in the current cultural divide parlance

[lens]

Dec 13, 2023 16:49:35 GMT alec said:

lens - I'm with c-a-r-f-r-e-w and @rafwan on the masking issue. It's pretty obvious that if you're covid cautious, you'll do your best to avoid potentially infectious situations, so mask wearers will be doing more online shopping, more WFH, less pubbing and clubbing. Like my local village shop, there's a small group of around a dozen people I regularly see first thing when the Coop opens, usually masked........

Well, that's fine..... but seriously, is it then right for this small group to try to impose their will on the vast majority? And in the case of such as public transport, impose their will on something which probably barely concerns them, if they don't go out much anyway! Hardly democratic! Why should a small group in a village think they should exert pressure to enforce a measure on such as Tfl if they very seldom if ever use it?

I'm sure they also answered "yes" to wanting to close nightclubs as well. Even if the nearest nightclub is 50 miles away and they hadn't even walked past one for 50 years.

Dec 13, 2023 16:49:35 GMT alec said:

I also think you're discounting the power of peer pressure. A lot of people would like to protect themselves but feel very self conscious, and so bow to social pressure. (It's one reason why autistic people are over represented in masking populations, according to one poll I've seen). They would like to mask, but don't want to be seen to be odd. This is an extremely powerful social mechanism.

alec - perhaps you'd like to give some thought to the deaf and hard and hearing, as well to those with autism? Because to that group, widespread mask wearing was a nightmare. I'm slightly hard of hearing and found it bad enough - to people far worse and highly reliant on lip reading it was a dreadful experience. Or do you just discount a disability if it doesn't suit your covid obsession?

And apart from in clinical cases, the evidence that masking is a way to "protect yourself" is flaky at best. Not unless done to a clinical standard that is virtually impossible to maintain on a long term basis. I don't know what your Co-op group is like, but I can think of one lady I know who I see weekly in hospital who may fit your covid cautious model, and is always to be seen wearing her mask. The trouble is ..... it's always round her chin! I've never once seen it even covering her mouth, let alone nose as well. I mean, just why? WHY? A bit like a while ago it wasn't uncommon to see people driving around alone in a car with a mask on. Again, just why? (A friend used to wonder if they also wore a condom when they were alone in bed.)

And frankly, I can't be bothered to say any more on the subject. Please, for everybody's sake, just drop this obsession. No illness is good, including Covid, but at the moment it should be pretty far down most people's priorities as something to worry about.

[domjg]

Dec 13, 2023 23:41:16 GMT jib said:

Dec 13, 2023 23:31:41 GMT steve said:

Graham you do realise it isn't 2013 now.

On 26 July 2017 the Supreme Court declared the Fees Order to be an unlawful interference with the common law right of access to justice, and quashed it. Employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal claims no longer attract fees.

On 15 November 2017 the Government announced the roll out of the employment tribunal refund scheme via which those who paid fees will be reimbursed.

It took the Tories to clean up the mess left by your friends.

At least you admit what a bunch of Toryist tw**s you were 2010-15.

In the first sentence you show your true colours. I've no doubt you were well disposed, at least initially to May and Johnson as they gave you your brexit present. Austerity didn't magically stop in 2016 or 2019. It wasn't a change of government, or did you think it was?

[graham]

Dec 13, 2023 23:34:24 GMT ptarmigan said:

Dec 13, 2023 15:02:03 GMT graham said:

I do become irritated when senior journalists post or talk gibberish.
In today's Guardian political podcast the paper's political editor - Kiran Stacy - reveals his ignorance of basic arithmetic. Whilst discussing last night's Commons vote which produced a Government majority of 44, he refers to the 29 Tory rebels who had abstained. He then goes on to say that were those 29 abstainers to vote against the Bill in January that the Government would be defeated. That is wrong!Were those rebel all to oppose next month the Government's majority would fall from 44 to 15. It might well be ,of course, that some Tories who supported the Government last night - such as Prit Patel, JRM , IDS and Andrea Jenkins (who was paired) will vote against next time - and that could put the majority in peril. Also Peter Bone voted for the Bill - but is likely to have disappeared by January!
I do,however, expect better of supposedly top-class journalists.

You're right of course. However, 56 is the government's working majority so if there are 29 Tory rebels then the govt could theoretically be defeated, so I wonder if he was thinking along these lines. I think in reality there would almost certainly need to be more than 29 rebels anyway as there are a few suspended Tories sitting as independents who will surely vote with the govt. 

Indeed - the de facto working majority - given that 7 Sinn Fein MPs do not attend - is circa 70. This journalist ought to have known that!