GogLais wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:04 pm
Well quite a few of their MPs have stopped voting for them so that's a start. Including the new MP who's only been there a couple of weeks. What does he know?
He knows that his PM is going to lose the By-Election this week; & he's lost the majority of his own MPs.
He knows that this time next year; his PM s going to be hunting for publishers for his memoirs.
It might not be the; "End"; but this is definitely the; "Beginning of the End" !
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:12 pm
by Raggs
fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:29 pm
You usually have an option of getting the stamp on a separate insert; so you can remove it if needed, for a different country.
I don't believe Israel stamps passports any more. You get a paper insert you need to keep hold of until you exit I believe.
There again, a ton of my passport is taken up by double page glue-in sheets due to my visa there, so I doubt that'd be missed if I wanted to go to Iran...
GogLais wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:04 pm
Well quite a few of their MPs have stopped voting for them so that's a start. Including the new MP who's only been there a couple of weeks. What does he know?
He knows that his PM is going to lose the By-Election this week; & he's lost the majority of his own MPs.
He knows that this time next year; his PM s going to be hunting for publishers for his memoirs.
It might not be the; "End"; but this is definitely the; "Beginning of the End" !
He could call it I Got it Done. The dedication would be interesting - To my Families, Whoever they are?
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:21 am
by I like neeps
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
He did become – yes – a bit of a hero in his time,” admits The New Statesman’s co-writer Maurice Gran today, sitting opposite me in a charmless meeting room at the offices of indie TV giant Fremantle Media. “I remember when [co-creator] Laurence [Marks] and I went to a Tory party conference to sell B’Stard books and people came up to us and said: ‘What a pity he isn’t real.’ It was unfortunate.
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
That sort of rock and a hard place negotiating position tends to be the preserve of the likes of the ERG (now CRG), or Trump over in the USA. The opposition only have so much influence and doesn't get to dictate terms.
There is of course a requirement for them to push for such schemes, and indeed to push on the fraud that's already been partly enabled by the schemes to date. But to say we're going to listen to the scientists on a matter of public health and then drag another policy issue into the mix with the straight up threat to risk public health if you don't get want you want? Grow up
One might disagree with some of the steps taken in the name of public health, but to keep the message simple and inclusive of the narrative we're listening to the scientists/public health experts there isn't much wriggle room. Support the government on the public health votes, and then beat them around the head for a lack of support and properly targeted support separately
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
That sort of rock and a hard place negotiating position tends to be the preserve of the likes of the ERG (now CRG), or Trump over in the USA. The opposition only have so much influence and doesn't get to dictate terms.
There is of course a requirement for them to push for such schemes, and indeed to push on the fraud that's already been partly enabled by the schemes to date. But to say we're going to listen to the scientists on a matter of public health and then drag another policy issue into the mix with the straight up threat to risk public health if you don't get want you want? Grow up
One might disagree with some of the steps taken in the name of public health, but to keep the message simple and inclusive of the narrative we're listening to the scientists/public health experts there isn't much wriggle room. Support the government on the public health votes, and then beat them around the head for a lack of support and properly targeted support separately
No it isn't rock and a hard place. It's a legitimate problem hospitality businesses and their supply chains are going to have now. You've mothballed the most productive periods of their year and have provided absolutely no support and that's all okay?
The public health message is contested anyway. The actual data we have on Omicron so far is provisionally actually quite positive in that very low fatality rate and vaccines even two doses protect against serious illness in every age band above the 50% WHO standards. The Sage modelling (which has consistently been very wrong) is what's driving this.
I guess it depends on how many rebels rebelled because they knew the policy was going through because of labour support. But still, labour could have got a policy win on sick pay or supporting business but Starmer is useless.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:55 am
by fishfoodie
I love the detail; it's like a where's Wally of Tory sleaze
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:58 am
by Rhubarb & Custard
I think if you're going to say unless we get financial concessions not directly related to public health we will not support public health policy that's rock and a hard place that gives you nowhere to go. Some wanted just that outcome to try and force a defeat on the government, those people are morons and like the CRG should be ignored whenever and wherever possible. To me that's not even at the level of a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they want more ice cream, that's a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they need more ice cream because they've not learned to distinguish between want and need.
Yes Labour should still push for support, but when it's not structured like that in the first place because they're the opposition not the government you don't then play games with public health.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 10:11 am
by JM2K6
I don't think it's fair to say the Sage modelling has been wrong. It provides a range of potential outcomes.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 10:24 am
by I like neeps
JM2K6 wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 10:11 am
I don't think it's fair to say the Sage modelling has been wrong. It provides a range of potential outcomes.
I am far from a fan of the Spectator but they've been tracking the actuals Vs range of potential outcomes for a while and it doesn't look good for Sage.
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:58 am
I think if you're going to say unless we get financial concessions not directly related to public health we will not support public health policy that's rock and a hard place that gives you nowhere to go. Some wanted just that outcome to try and force a defeat on the government, those people are morons and like the CRG should be ignored whenever and wherever possible. To me that's not even at the level of a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they want more ice cream, that's a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they need more ice cream because they've not learned to distinguish between want and need.
Yes Labour should still push for support, but when it's not structured like that in the first place because they're the opposition not the government you don't then play games with public health.
(A) increased sick pay is directly linked to public health. (B) a raft of cancellations linked to public health messaging or policies on isolation periods I think is linked to public health. Would the cancellations have happened without this public health policy? No. I'd argue it's a strong link.
I also don't think it's bad if in future we have public health policies stopping an industry from functioning that industry is supported.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 10:36 am
by tabascoboy
Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:29 pm
Well at least there aren't pictures
No, wait...
Conservative Shaun Bailey quits London police role after Christmas party broke Covid rules
JM2K6 wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 10:11 am
I don't think it's fair to say the Sage modelling has been wrong. It provides a range of potential outcomes.
I am far from a fan of the Spectator but they've been tracking the actuals Vs range of potential outcomes for a while and it doesn't look good for Sage.
Cheers! I am far too busy today to dig into it, but just looking at the first one on that page, I see the graph they're using is predicated on a continued increase in contact patterns - I don't know if that actually happened or not! - and they also couch this bit of prediction with very strong "there's a shit-ton of uncertainty and we're not even going to bother to attempt to model anything more than the next few weeks".
It's totally possible they're just miles off regardless, but they don't just provide graphs...!
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:58 am
I think if you're going to say unless we get financial concessions not directly related to public health we will not support public health policy that's rock and a hard place that gives you nowhere to go. Some wanted just that outcome to try and force a defeat on the government, those people are morons and like the CRG should be ignored whenever and wherever possible. To me that's not even at the level of a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they want more ice cream, that's a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they need more ice cream because they've not learned to distinguish between want and need.
Yes Labour should still push for support, but when it's not structured like that in the first place because they're the opposition not the government you don't then play games with public health.
(A) increased sick pay is directly linked to public health. (B) a raft of cancellations linked to public health messaging or policies on isolation periods I think is linked to public health. Would the cancellations have happened without this public health policy? No. I'd argue it's a strong link.
I also don't think it's bad if in future we have public health policies stopping an industry from functioning that industry is supported.
Linked to public health issues in and of themselves, distinct from Covid even if with a significant drive from Covid. So take them up as separate issues, trying to lump the whole together and saying if we don't get our way we're taking our ball and going home is pathetic and pathetically stupid, and it's going to look bad to an awful lot of people who don't start from the position of Jeremy was better and we don't like the more moderate Starmer.
If in future we don't support all industry that might just be how it is, it's entirely possible and indeed very likely we wouldn't want to support all industry. And again it'd be stupid to try. Which isn't to say correctly targeted support isn't important and shouldn't be lobbied for, it's only to say you don't play games linking any steps being taken in the name of public health. Public health isn't a bargaining chip to be played with in such fashion.
JM2K6 wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 10:11 am
I don't think it's fair to say the Sage modelling has been wrong. It provides a range of potential outcomes.
I am far from a fan of the Spectator but they've been tracking the actuals Vs range of potential outcomes for a while and it doesn't look good for Sage.
Cheers! I am far too busy today to dig into it, but just looking at the first one on that page, I see the graph they're using is predicated on a continued increase in contact patterns - I don't know if that actually happened or not! - and they also couch this bit of prediction with very strong "there's a shit-ton of uncertainty and we're not even going to bother to attempt to model anything more than the next few weeks".
It's totally possible they're just miles off regardless, but they don't just provide graphs...!
By publishing a model they will be influencing behaviour invalidating some of their models which amuses me.
I am far from a fan of the Spectator but they've been tracking the actuals Vs range of potential outcomes for a while and it doesn't look good for Sage.
Cheers! I am far too busy today to dig into it, but just looking at the first one on that page, I see the graph they're using is predicated on a continued increase in contact patterns - I don't know if that actually happened or not! - and they also couch this bit of prediction with very strong "there's a shit-ton of uncertainty and we're not even going to bother to attempt to model anything more than the next few weeks".
It's totally possible they're just miles off regardless, but they don't just provide graphs...!
By publishing a model they will be influencing behaviour invalidating some of their models which amuses me.
True! But they're obligated to do so, and while they probably had quite a lot of influence in the early days, I doubt very many members of the public see their data now at all.
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:58 am
I think if you're going to say unless we get financial concessions not directly related to public health we will not support public health policy that's rock and a hard place that gives you nowhere to go. Some wanted just that outcome to try and force a defeat on the government, those people are morons and like the CRG should be ignored whenever and wherever possible. To me that's not even at the level of a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they want more ice cream, that's a tired 3 year old jumping up and down crying they need more ice cream because they've not learned to distinguish between want and need.
Yes Labour should still push for support, but when it's not structured like that in the first place because they're the opposition not the government you don't then play games with public health.
(A) increased sick pay is directly linked to public health. (B) a raft of cancellations linked to public health messaging or policies on isolation periods I think is linked to public health. Would the cancellations have happened without this public health policy? No. I'd argue it's a strong link.
I also don't think it's bad if in future we have public health policies stopping an industry from functioning that industry is supported.
Linked to public health issues in and of themselves, distinct from Covid even if with a significant drive from Covid. So take them up as separate issues, trying to lump the whole together and saying if we don't get our way we're taking our ball and going home is pathetic and pathetically stupid, and it's going to look bad to an awful lot of people who don't start from the position of Jeremy was better and we don't like the more moderate Starmer.
If in future we don't support all industry that might just be how it is, it's entirely possible and indeed very likely we wouldn't want to support all industry. And again it'd be stupid to try. Which isn't to say correctly targeted support isn't important and shouldn't be lobbied for, it's only to say you don't play games linking any steps being taken in the name of public health. Public health isn't a bargaining chip to be played with in such fashion.
I just don't think moderate means happily continuing with the lowest level of sick pay in Europe and watching an entire industry see cancellation after cancellation which has very real consequences. I don't think it's a game, I don't think you'll find a pub owner or someone whose income is now slashed agree it's a game. I also don't think advancing policy which has clear benefits is a game. It's what politicians are there for?
And I don't believe these measures are guaranteed to be good for public health. Nobody has any evidence of vaccine passports reducing the spread of covid. They seem to encourage people to get jabbed but even that has few if any benefits over the next couple of weeks.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:12 pm
by fishfoodie
Why doesn't Starmer call the Bumblecunt on barefaced lies he spouts in PMQs ?
It's not hard; because it's always the same ones he trots out; as evidence of how great he is
Today again; he lied about how the UK Vaccine program wouldn't have been possible if the UK was still in the EU; because the EMEA wouldn't allow it: THIS IS A LIE !
Call the fucker on it right there & then & get him to correct the record !
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:21 pm
by Sandstorm
fishfoodie wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:12 pm
Why doesn't Starmer call the Bumblecunt on barefaced lies he spouts in PMQs ?
It's not hard; because it's always the same ones he trots out; as evidence of how great he is
Today again; he lied about how the UK Vaccine program wouldn't have been possible if the UK was still in the EU; because the EMEA wouldn't allow it: THIS IS A LIE !
Call the fucker on it right there & then & get him to correct the record !
Starmer said nothing to annoy you and the EU.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:21 pm
by JM2K6
fishfoodie wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:12 pm
Why doesn't Starmer call the Bumblecunt on barefaced lies he spouts in PMQs ?
It's not hard; because it's always the same ones he trots out; as evidence of how great he is
Today again; he lied about how the UK Vaccine program wouldn't have been possible if the UK was still in the EU; because the EMEA wouldn't allow it: THIS IS A LIE !
Call the fucker on it right there & then & get him to correct the record !
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
If Labour had voted against it, they would have spent the winter defending themselves against accusations from the government of being the cause of all the excess deaths.
fishfoodie wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:12 pm
Why doesn't Starmer call the Bumblecunt on barefaced lies he spouts in PMQs ?
It's not hard; because it's always the same ones he trots out; as evidence of how great he is
Today again; he lied about how the UK Vaccine program wouldn't have been possible if the UK was still in the EU; because the EMEA wouldn't allow it: THIS IS A LIE !
Call the fucker on it right there & then & get him to correct the record !
Literally not allowed to
You do it with points of order immediately after PMQs.
'I need to raise with the speaker that the Prime Minister has again misled the house'.
Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:29 pm
Well at least there aren't pictures
No, wait...
Conservative Shaun Bailey quits London police role after Christmas party broke Covid rules
Jeez, you fuckers have lost the plot. Where is the scoring left to right?
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:32 pm
by SaintK
There are needy bastards, then there are needy bastards!
This one would sell his soul
A Conservative MP pleaded with a fixer to help him secure a well-paid second job with a Saudi company or other work relating to the Middle East, at one point saying he needed money to pay school fees.
Daniel Kawczynski’s repeated pleas for lucrative employment – revealed in a series of WhatsApp messages seen by the Guardian – show him citing his pro-Saudi stance in parliament as part of an attempt to get paid work from a businessman.
He did become – yes – a bit of a hero in his time,” admits The New Statesman’s co-writer Maurice Gran today, sitting opposite me in a charmless meeting room at the offices of indie TV giant Fremantle Media. “I remember when [co-creator] Laurence [Marks] and I went to a Tory party conference to sell B’Stard books and people came up to us and said: ‘What a pity he isn’t real.’ It was unfortunate.
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
If Labour had voted against it, they would have spent the winter defending themselves against accusations from the government of being the cause of all the excess deaths.
No, they wouldn't have, as the Tories have a majority of 80. They could vote it through without Labour.
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
If Labour had voted against it, they would have spent the winter defending themselves against accusations from the government of being the cause of all the excess deaths.
No, they wouldn't have, as the Tories have a majority of 80. They could vote it through without Labour.
Everyone was well aware there'd be huge Tory rebellion.
This is why Labour were wrong to back the government without financial support.
If Labour had voted against it, they would have spent the winter defending themselves against accusations from the government of being the cause of all the excess deaths.
No, they wouldn't have, as the Tories have a majority of 80. They could vote it through without Labour.
If they hadn't supported it, the government would have used it as a stick to beat them with at every mention of the pandemic.
Or do you expect Boris to all of a sudden become in some way decent and honorable?
He did become – yes – a bit of a hero in his time,” admits The New Statesman’s co-writer Maurice Gran today, sitting opposite me in a charmless meeting room at the offices of indie TV giant Fremantle Media. “I remember when [co-creator] Laurence [Marks] and I went to a Tory party conference to sell B’Stard books and people came up to us and said: ‘What a pity he isn’t real.’ It was unfortunate.
(A) increased sick pay is directly linked to public health. (B) a raft of cancellations linked to public health messaging or policies on isolation periods I think is linked to public health. Would the cancellations have happened without this public health policy? No. I'd argue it's a strong link.
I also don't think it's bad if in future we have public health policies stopping an industry from functioning that industry is supported.
Linked to public health issues in and of themselves, distinct from Covid even if with a significant drive from Covid. So take them up as separate issues, trying to lump the whole together and saying if we don't get our way we're taking our ball and going home is pathetic and pathetically stupid, and it's going to look bad to an awful lot of people who don't start from the position of Jeremy was better and we don't like the more moderate Starmer.
If in future we don't support all industry that might just be how it is, it's entirely possible and indeed very likely we wouldn't want to support all industry. And again it'd be stupid to try. Which isn't to say correctly targeted support isn't important and shouldn't be lobbied for, it's only to say you don't play games linking any steps being taken in the name of public health. Public health isn't a bargaining chip to be played with in such fashion.
I just don't think moderate means happily continuing with the lowest level of sick pay in Europe and watching an entire industry see cancellation after cancellation which has very real consequences. I don't think it's a game, I don't think you'll find a pub owner or someone whose income is now slashed agree it's a game. I also don't think advancing policy which has clear benefits is a game. It's what politicians are there for?
And I don't believe these measures are guaranteed to be good for public health. Nobody has any evidence of vaccine passports reducing the spread of covid. They seem to encourage people to get jabbed but even that has few if any benefits over the next couple of weeks.
I've not heard Starmer say he is happy about those things. But again making support for public health positions during a pandemic conditional on any number of wider (if sometimes linked) issues seems markedly irresponsible, and likely in the round just bad politics. You'd very likely loose more potential voters than you'd make happier.
Anger and a certainty of righteousness are a difficult sell. And it'd be worth remembering the public given a choice voted in a Tory government, I don't happen to like the voting system or this government, but it's what we have as a system, and the Tories are in charge, if also in large part revolting
If Labour had voted against it, they would have spent the winter defending themselves against accusations from the government of being the cause of all the excess deaths.
No, they wouldn't have, as the Tories have a majority of 80. They could vote it through without Labour.
Everyone was well aware there'd be huge Tory rebellion.
Exactly. That's what gave Starmer an opportunity to try and improve the situation for many people's whose lives have been made extremely difficult and no recourse for it.
Don't really understand why (a) improving to even European average sick pay or (b) supporting restaurants/bars/cafes who have just had their month completely tanked is a bad thing for a Labour party to be interested in.
