Who will be next Labour leader?

[Alikado]

Good old Keir straight in with the whining about the medical response to the Virus in the Times.

Does he really think Boris, Matt Hancock and co are not completely in the hands of the medics

When will he learn ?

he is apparently setting four tests, doesn't seem that long ago his last set of tests were the subject of ridicule.


Whats Jeremy doing ?

Probably digging his allotment over.

The Government response has been pitiful, the medics are only advisors the Government set the Policy and Strategy.

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding Toodles McGinty post #46, your remarks allude to the factitousness of political discourse. It is, perhaps, ever thus.

As for first past the post, I suggest you've unconsciously discounted the impact our voting system has long had on the 'ecology' of political organization. Understandable though it is, a tendency to suppose you could substitute some version of PR for FPTP and that party allegiances would scarcely be effected is mistaken, I suspect.

I note your words "Corbyn's reign" which sounds dismissive and you cite Margaret Hodge's 'delight' "the 'Corbyn experiment' is over …" — you are identifying with one species of Labour supporters and subtly distancing yourself from another.

FPTP exerts centripetal force tending to sustain a degree of (factious) unity; PR would exert centrifugal impulse. That could irretrievably change the nature of the Labour party, as it changes the balance of power in the House of Commons.

[local]

Probably digging his allotment over.

The Government response has been pitiful, the medics are only advisors the Government set the Policy and Strategy.

Could you provide some examples where the government went against their medics advice ?

[Alikado]

Could you provide some examples where the government went against their medics advice ?

The medics give advice and options with outcomes, the Government build the strategy, they are the ones responsible, they never responded to the 2013 Stress Test except by imposing further cuts, now they are failing to keep up and constantly changing tack.

[local]

The medics give advice and options with outcomes, the Government build the strategy, they are the ones responsible, they never responded to the 2013 Stress Test except by imposing further cuts, now they are failing to keep up and constantly changing tack.

So you have you got any examples of where the government has gone against the advice of Chris Whitty, and chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance ?

Just try and remember the timelines of this virus and its effects around the globe, compared with other epidemics.

[said]

Well, that's one opinion. I can only go off personal opinions of the members I know.

And yes, things rarely are clear cut.

If there is one thing that can be guaranteed, though, is that various factions (and you're correct, Labour has many factions), will bicker. Always have.

In the Blair years, there were disgruntled noises from the traditional left. We all know about Momentum and the centrists during Corbyn's reign. Now the likes of Margaret Hodge, say, are delighted as, in her words, the 'Corbyn experiment' is over and Jewish Labour members can return to the fold.

Having said that, the Tories suffered similarly last summer. With many Tories coming up against Johnson and the ERG, leaving them with a negative majority. Traditional one-nation Tories such as Clarke, Soames etc either walking or pushed.

Highly entertaining from the outside, but possibly not the best for the country. What is best for the country, however, is an effective opposition. Not in terms of seats, obviously, but in terms of scrutiny. Particularly when we have a PM that literally runs away from scrutiny (and hides in fridges).

Less than twenty four hours in office and Mr. Starmer is facing a less than favoured media response, with Starmer's 'Littany of Failure' during his past career, which has been published today. We will just have to wait and see.

[said]

Could you provide some examples where the government went against their medics advice ?

Just bear in mind who pays these expert Scientists for their opinions. If I were to hire you as an eminent scientist, on an obscene salary - to prove that -hypothetically - 5G masts do have a very detrimental effect on society - are you going to provide me with a report to the contrary?

Personally, I would be seeking the views of expert scientists not in the government employ, for an unbiased account.

I have already given the name of one 'top expert scientist' who provides the government with his 'expert views' - who has proved to have been seriously, very seriously wrong, embarrassing so - on a number of occasions.

[sandGroundZero]

said's post #40:

It is written in History, that hundreds of years ago - there were just a few farmers in the area now known as Israel. Ancient traders recognised the potential for profitable trade from these farmers and began building up a good economy for the region. The traders settled in Israel and with the farmers had a good comfortable life. The surrounding areas of Syria, Egypt etc., were experiencing a downturn in trade and when they saw that Israel was successful, they moved into the region in large numbers, and expelled the traders. The economy began reducing, while the traders grew in number and fought their way back into the country that they had made their own. This activity was repeated several times over history - until the trader's numbers had increased sufficiently to hold on to their country. The traders are those we refer to as the Jewish people - the infiltrators are those known now as the Palestinians.

Utterly lamentable!

[Toodles McGinty]

Less than twenty four hours in office and Mr. Starmer is facing a less than favoured media response, with Starmer's 'Littany of Failure' during his past career, which has been published today. We will just have to wait and see.

I'm assuming an opinion expressed in a right wing paper?

How would you expect anything different?

He's had a fairly stellar career so far. Wouldn't have thought he was a terrible barrister, given he was voted QC of the year by his peers. Was the DPP and head of the CPS three years into a Tory administration. Knighted for services to law and criminal justice, working for Human Rights. Won the Bar Council's Sydney Elland Goldsmith Award for his outstanding contribution to pro bono work in challenging the death penalty

Married to a Jewish solicitor, he knows how many kids he's got.

Even supposed to be the basis for Mark Darcy. Though that is irrelevant, just a little colour thrown in.

No racism. No ******** pigs heads. No antisemitism. No being sacked several times for lying. No refusal to answer to Parliament. No cocaine snorting. No hiding in fridges. No eugenics.

Can even comb his own hair.

You've got to dig pretty deep to get any real dirt. But you know they'll try, right from the off. I can't imagine they'll get much.

[Toodles McGinty]

I note your words "Corbyn's reign" which sounds dismissive and you cite Margaret Hodge's 'delight' "the 'Corbyn experiment' is over …" — you are identifying with one species of Labour supporters and subtly distancing yourself from another.

I've already stated that I voted for Starmer. Anyone who's read my posts on here will agree I've been critical of Corbyn. The same would confirm I've wanted Starmer as leader before he was even a candidate. I don't follow anyone's political ethos blindly and without question. I liked Corbyn's manifestos, though I can see how they'd be too 'socialist' for the majority. Apart, of course, in times like these where socialism is the only option.

I quoted Hodge to illustrate her happiness, and that of centrist Labour members, that Corbyn is no longer leader. Reigning. Tenure. Whichever anyone prefers. I could also quote Momentum's tweet stating they keep Starmer under scrutiny. It doesn't mean I particularly agree with them either. Nor would it mean I'm distancing myself from the centrists. I identify with neither to any degree. No subtlety, no reading between the lines. Neither ideology appeals entirely.

The political spectrum is immense. Even within the Labour party. There are a lot of policies I agree with on the left of the spectrum, hence my membership of the party. There are a few on the right I agree with too. Even the odd Tory policy. I don't believe in pure socialism. I don't agree with unfettered capitalism either. You could try to translate my phraseology into a mindset, but we are invariably more complex than that, I'm sure you'd agree.


As for FPTP being the downfall of anything, that remains to be seen. As several of us have noted, that isn't going to change when it supports the two party system, because the party in power aren't going to change it. They'd be stupid to do so.

[bensherman]

So you have you got any examples of where the government has gone against the advice of Chris Whitty, and chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance ?

Just try and remember the timelines of this virus and its effects around the globe, compared with other epidemics.

The problem here is not that they rejected the advice of the senior medics; but that their advice ( to go for "herd immunity" contradicted the advice of the WHO and the other countries earlier in the epidemic.

The WHO are the experts in this, with the experiences of SARS , H1N1 and Ebola. However good Whitty and the rest are they do NOT have that experience.

Not only did the WHO reject "herd immunity" but the idea had a fundamental flaw, which was that as this is a new strain, nobody know what proportion of the population would need to be infected to achieve "herd immunity". When that became apparent they should have dumped the idea anyway.

Allegedly we only moved away from it when France proposed to shut access from the UK because it was so unhappy with our approach.

I am afraid the reluctance to follow the WHO may be a product of our growing national introversion. Epidemics do not respect borders and previous ones have been conquered by global co-operation. But we seem to think now that global co-operation is evil.

[Hamble]

Barry Gardiner "stood down".

[sandGroundZero]

Ref. Toodles McGinty post #56
Your preference is your business, of course.

"The political spectrum is immense. Even within the Labour party. There are a lot of policies I agree with on the left of the spectrum, hence my membership of the party. There are a few on the right I agree with too. Even the odd Tory policy. I don't believe in pure socialism. I don't agree with unfettered capitalism either. …"

Every politically-minded individual could, I suppose, pick out points among the abstractions — e.g. "pure socialism", "unfettered capitalism"; "left", "right".

"As for FPTP …that isn't going to change when it supports the two party system, because the party in power aren't going to change it. They'd be stupid to do so."

I would say the inertia of our representative selection goes deeper than two main parties' refusal to relinquish a structural advantage, though of course that is a powerful instinct. There is a view among political scientists and constitutional scholars along the lines 'pull the wrong thread, and the whole fabric unravels'.

… or perhaps it's just constitutional conservatism.

But all that aside, replacing FPTP with proportional representation is bound to have unanticipated consequences.

[local]

The problem here is not that they rejected the advice of the senior medics; but that their advice ( to go for "herd immunity" contradicted the advice of the WHO and the other countries earlier in the epidemic.

The WHO are the experts in this, with the experiences of SARS , H1N1 and Ebola. However good Whitty and the rest are they do NOT have that experience.

Not only did the WHO reject "herd immunity" but the idea had a fundamental flaw, which was that as this is a new strain, nobody know what proportion of the population would need to be infected to achieve "herd immunity". When that became apparent they should have dumped the idea anyway.

Allegedly we only moved away from it when France proposed to shut access from the UK because it was so unhappy with our approach.

I am afraid the reluctance to follow the WHO may be a product of our growing national introversion. Epidemics do not respect borders and previous ones have been conquered by global co-operation. But we seem to think now that global co-operation is evil.

So that's a no they haven't then ?


The harsh reality is the virus is out there and only completely isolating ourselves from the world in December would have worked (maybe).

Those who have put their heads under the duvet for the last few weeks will have to stay an awfully long time under it to give themselves any hope.

The lockdown is only to control the numbers.

We all do our bit and hopefully some more can be spared but its no cure.

In the meantime our economy that pays for the NHS etc tanks how and when to lift the lockdown is at best an educated gamble.

Its a call for the armchair Professors of hindsight the rest of us are just grateful we neither have to work in frontline medicine nor make the big decisions.


You quote the W.H.O who said this on the 12th January 2020,


*WHO advice
Based on information provided by national authorities, WHO’s recommendations on public health measures and surveillance for novel coronaviruses apply.

WHO does not recommend any specific health measures for travellers. In case of symptoms suggestive of respiratory illness either during or after travel, travellers are encouraged to seek medical attention and share travel history with their healthcare provider. Travel guidance has been updated.

WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available on this event.


Hindsight only tells us that advice was wrong.



https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-janua...irus-china/en/

[silver fox]

Starmer has the charisma of a small snail.

Why pretend he is a good choice.

Boris needs some competition to make him raise his game.

Your bromance with Johnson is more than a little vomit inducing, personally I don't think Johnson will survive the full term as PM.

Agree with one thing, it is all a game with Johnson, competition and serious questions seem to induce a raging desire to run and hide.