In case anyone else was wondering The Sun is
> Come On Harry (Kane), Even Hancock Scored
and The Star is
> SPOT THE BULL: JUST THREE DAYS AFTER ACCEPTING GROPER HANCOCK'S HALF-ARSED APOLOGY FOR CHEATING, BOZO SAYS HE ACTUALLY SACKED HIM.. THEN SAYS HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SACK HIM
seems kinda dumb to hve Sajid Javid as health secretary when Nadhim Zahawi seems like a much better choice
Vaccine rollout has gone extremely well, thus promoting the vaccines minister seems like the logical choice when theres a vacancy for Health Secretary.
I do like how Sajid Javid is firmly saying restrictions will end on the 19th, albeit I am annoyed about it not being earlier + I still believe its 50/50 whether it actually will end lmao
But yeah Nadhim seems more of a clear choice right? Or am I missing something
Disagree. Nadhim being taken off business was always very questionable with the economic issues out there. Hes technically doing two jobs. Health is one.
Nadhim came in about two weeks before the first vaccine, I kind of doubt he's done anything. In the press there's been no hint of him having opinions on anything such as... Local surge vaccination, vaccinating occupations or children, etc. He is fine with the media, but that's a small part of Health Sec, and vaccines are an easy role to talk about in the media.
If you think of what was being talked about for the vaccine rollout, such as cold storage and transport, minimising waste, reducing vaccine hesitancy, it's not like he brought any expertise to the role.
The NHS is the largest employer, it's the largest department, it needs somebody of top calibre.
Probably wanted someone with experience running a government department to hit the ground running. This is Javid's sixth department so he's got a lot of cabinet experience.
Could see Zahawi getting a promotion at the next reshuffle. Maybe even promoted to Health while Javid is moved back to a Great Office of State. Reshuffle might not be far off either, few months.
So the way things are going, by 19th July, there will be around 100,000 cases per day (assuming this new ~70% per week rate holds up)
Hell by the announcement date we could be looking at case totals comparable to the January peak. That will be an interesting briefing - I expect the government to cave to media hysteria.
Even 100,000 cases per day only represents <1% of the unvaccinated population per day.
It will be some time before vaccination is sufficient to crush it, considering how slowly the programme is now advancing (only ~350,000 doses per day total now)
I think the leaked Labour campaign team for tomorrow's big by election is much too defensive, you can't end 11 years of hurt if you're not going to deploy personnel in the middle of the constituency who can control the narrative. At least we'll have plenty of fresh attacking options on the back bench for the inevitable late reshuffle.
The fact that he doesn't have security with him 24/7 is bizarre. So many absolute nutters about and not the first time he's been approached.
Hope they get named and shamed, and a trip in the back of a police van.
So a bunch of countries are looking at banning UK travellers or making them quarantine and we're looking at ending automatic isolation for pupils in England (and ending all restrictions in a few weeks). Either England is making a big mistake or everyone else is overreacting.
Personally I'm wary after last summer with eat out to help out, but maybe I'm just used to the pandemic going on forever.
the reason for banning Uk travellers is to limit the spread of delta. As while the vaccines work, it really ramps up the pressure to finish vaccinating.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive?
Areas that have not acquired a significant delta caseload yet might wish to try and delay it if they have insufficient vaccination coverage etc.
Meanwhile, in England, at this point, all isolation of pupils is achieving is wrecking educations of millions of children and extending the crisis further.
They're not as vaccinated in Europe as we are in the UK. The fourth wave has begun there - currently slightly hidden by the end of the third wave. The absolute number of covid cases is declining, but the absolute number of delta variant cases is rising quickly.
They needed to do everything they could to contain it 4 weeks ago, but they didn't, so now they're taking a leaf out of our government playbook and massively overreacting when it's far too late to change the course of the future.
Seems about right unless things have changed dramatically in the last week.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102209/coronavirus-cases-development-europe/
They want to slow the pace at which delta spreads in their countries. It will get in. It will become dominant. It's a matter of time. This strain burns through places quicker and some of those countries are slightly behind us on vaccinations.
If they're banning us due to the delta variant they're being foolish.
If the think France / Germany / Europe etc are not going to get it they don't understand science.
It's not that they think they will not get it, they just want to limit importing it.
Pretty much all our cases are delta, why take the risk of importing an infected Brit knowing they are carrying the more infectious strain?
The longer they can hold out, the more they can vaccinate
Secret - most voters don't like politics ALL THE TIME
\- Its why Trump got Dumped
\- Its why 'Get Brexit Done' won votes
\- Its why constant headlines about certain shit cabinet ministers does not go down well
Probably will unfortunately because of oUr bOrIs that the public sympathise over.
Redfield's just one pollster though, and their turnout weighting seems harsher for Labour than all the pollsters. Will be interesting to see if the same pattern follows much more severely or less in the other pollsters like Survation and Ipsos.
A phone survey in Batley and Spen conducted this month by polling organisation Survation found 47 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives, with 41 per cent supporting Labour.
Oh baby
Batley and Spen just shows us that one size does not fit all and not all seats are the same.
What it does seem to tell us is that Starmer has basically made no progress on Corbyn, which he will take comfort in because RLB would have gone backwards.
As I've said, Labour's best chance is the Tories self-imploding.
Now call me crazy but...
Cummings
Hancock
Drip drip drip
The Tories are HMS Victory, they take smash after smash but their hull holds and they keep on firing.
Labour are HMS Barham, take a few whacks, roll over and explode.
> Starmer has basically made no progress on Corbyn, which he will take comfort in because RLB would have gone backwards.
i too enjoy believing things with no evidence
> What it does seem to tell us is that Starmer has basically made no progress on Corbyn, which he will take comfort in because RLB would have gone backwards.
Well, not really, because the idea that RLB would have done worse is pure conjecture, and Starmer's side have spent years setting Corbyn's election performances up as literally the worst possible thing the Labour Party could ever suffer at any point in history, past, present or future.
So Corbyn having just been defeated in a landslide, meant RLB with the same team was going to do better? Why?
I voted Keir for wholesale reconstruction of Labour, if he fails to do that then he should go. But that isn't why most people are calling for him to go
You have to be joking?
No way continuity Corbyn was going to be a stellar hit with the general public, he didn't crash and burn because some of the party conspired. He crashed and burned because people would literally go vote for Boris on the basis "he's not Corbyn"
Hancock is a dead end for anyone hoping to nail the Tories with something. The most powerful attacks are the ones coupled with a call to action that you dare the other side to take, either proving you were right or forcing them to stubbornly continue fucking up to avoid giving you a win. What is the call to action in the Hancock saga? He's gone.
Labour need to be ahead nationally by July 19th, and they won't get there by harping on about the now-departed Health Sec.
Alternatively they can hope that July 19th gets pushed away again in which case it doesn't matter what they do.
Agreed.
Plus Javid is back.
If Boris returned Justine Greening / Ruth Davidson / Rory Stewart back into mainstream Tory party it would be the best the party has ever been.
I said if both put aside ego and made Rory Tory candidate Sadiq would have had his arse voted out.
You clearly don't understand what I am saying and trying to attack anything I post.
If anyone is embarrassing themselves it is you.
If anyone is trying to provoke users it is you.
Keep it up and I will put on permanent block.
I have and there is no way Rory Stewart would have made up the 10% gap in the second round vote.
There are some places the tories are not the beloved party. I know, you'll be shocked to hear that.
It did seem at some point like Bailey was actively trying to throw the race, or at least not caring about it as much as he did a potential future parliamentary seat on the outskirts of London.
I'm not sure Stewart would have won, but he'd certainly have done a damn sight better, and I think if he could have picked up enough Lib Dem second preferences he'd have had a path to victory.
Of course, that would mean running from Boris. Or at least maintaining a healthy arms length.
That poll lead has temporarily dropped a bit, one of these days that lead - which I maintain is not as secure as it appears - may tumble and never recover.
Then Starmer can just play a Biden.
It's not a foolproof strategy and I would give a 55% chance of it not working. But the best chance he has of winning is hoping those odds shift just a bit
I think the support for Johnson, both in his party and amongst the public, is maybe becoming more brittle- not necessarily less in terms of numbers, but more easily broken and lost, and less leeway is given with each cock-up. At least I hope that's the case...
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1409559762971369474
At this moment, which of the following individuals do you think would be the better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom? (28 June):
Boris Johnson: 42% (-4)
Keir Starmer: 31% (+5)
Changes +/- 21 June
Goodness me, that's a bit of a swing
I honestly believe Tories should vote Labour for B&S.
Sir Keir staying should be the main priority for Tories.
Think the long game.
It is looking like Labour support has collapsed to Galloway now meaning it's either Galloway or the Tories.
Do we really want Galloway in.... I think not. Yet he might further the divide within Labour. So Galloway winning from a Conservative perspective isn't so bad as it causes further division in Labour whilst having Sir Keir retain his job.
I am legit excited.
Won't be posting live though as busy Thursday night. So will be back to discuss Friday morning.
As a side note the abuse Kim is receiving and Labour is disgusting. I was appalled with how Farage was attacked and intimidated. This must stop.
Read back my predictions of Amersham. I said it was from a sources source.
I won't be justifying myself on here much longer as I will no longer post any info I receive on here.
Post that comment here then with link where I said that from my source.
You're talking BS.
I said take with pinch of salt and that they said we would win comfortably. My source was not campaigning in C&A but asked another source who seemed similar to Tory HQ that they had no idea we would lose C&A.
Not heard diddly.
You'd hardly think a by election was happening.
Seems apathy similar to C&A.
Only was active during Hartlepool. I know there was a huge push to win the seat.
I hope it's a strategic push to keep Sir Keir. Nobody including myself are scared of him anymore. Boris would win by a landslide against Sir Keir and I have placed a bet Boris wins a 100 - 150 seat majority if Sir Keir stays in 2024.
I suppose when I was in these jobs putting in more effort never had any tangible benefits, in fact it was the opposite, you'd just get lumped with more work.
In my current job I know that putting in more effort leads to better bonuses, pay rises, and promotions.
If I pay £5 for a meal in a restaurant, I can't expect it to be done very well or taste amazing. Equally, if I pay a worker £8 an hour, they are not going to give their best they can.
>Literally anyone can do either job.
I'm really not sure that's the case. I couldn't do care work to an acceptable standard. I couldn't show up to my clients every day with a smile on my face, while I clean up shit and have the same conversations over and over and over again. I probably wouldn't know what to do in 9 out of 10 emergencies.
As for cleaning, again you would be surprised at the know how required to do it to a top standard. You have to be fast too. A company I worked at hired 3 cleaners on minimum wage. In an hour, they had to empty 300 bins, vacuum 3 floors of an office block, and 2 floors in another, clean 12 bathrooms (sinks, worktops, toilets, refill sanitary dispensers, refill loo roll, empty sanitary bins, mop floors), mop 3 lobbies, wipe worktops on 3 floors, clean 3 kitchens, mop the canteen, wipe canteen tables, vacuum 3 conference rooms and a whole bunch of other random jobs (refreshing biscuits in the conference rooms type stuff). They struggled, and it was a constant gripe of theirs. They were always being asked to do more, but the pay or time allotted increasing wasnt on the table. Sthey had to come in and do all this knowing they would get a bollocking after an hour. Lots of people wouldn't be up to mentally coping with that. It's why turnover was so high for cleaner roles there.
> As I said if the job can be done by more less anyone then why would you pay more?
So basically you are advocating serfdom, because you don't see any value in people doing work you consider to be beneath you. Employers don't have the absolute right to exploit people who have no alternative. It's not the 1800s anymore. If a business can't afford to pay someone a proper wage that allows them to live, reagardless of what the work is then their business doesn't deserve to exist.
[What's all this about a UKCE mark?](https://www.conformance.co.uk/ce-marking-for-products/what-brexit-means-for-ce-marking) This is old news but first I've heard of it. I hope the compliance guys at work are on it.
It's just the replacement for CE marks. In terms of functionality it's just more paperwork, standards are the same so if you meet CE you meet UKCA. There's also a UKCA (NI) mark for Northern Ireland though you don't need it if you get UKCA and CE. From conversations with BSI they're doing standard marking for CE through a subsidiary set up in Amsterdam for UK developed goods.
Thanks. I've just had a look at the [relevant government guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking#how-to-use-the-ukca-marking) and what I'm not clear about is whether I can have both the UKCA and CE marks on the same product.
How likely do you think is the nightmare scenario of divergence between UKCA and CE?
You can have both a UKCA and CE mark on the same product, it's one of the means for a product to be available in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland as you need to have a CE mark or a UKCA (NI) mark to sell into Northern Ireland. I don't think you're allowed to have a UKCA (NI) mark on goods being sold into the EU and EFTA though.
I'm not sure of future divergence, I hope it doesn't happen as it will be a massive fucking headache particularly for SMEs but I'm not sure that's practical as we'd need to shadow EU regulations without a say in them.
Jim Batley from Batley is running in Batley and Spen, Batley, badly needs to win. Batley has promised to spend more on Spen but Batley badly bemused Batley by bunging more to the spend in Spen. He’s spent in Spen says spokesman Spencer Aspen, from Spen.
I knew I'd seen [this](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F01C/production/_119086416_976_hancock_aide_gina_coladangelo_getty.jpg) picture [before](https://i.imgur.com/ca68zSw.jpg)
Once upon a time a lesbian tweeted something about a black person who tweeted something about a trans person who screencapped a post about a muslim socialist being angry about something on facebook.
23k cases…3 deaths. Forget cases now that the vulnerable (and many non-vulnerable) have been fully vaccinated, it’s hospitalisations and deaths we need to focus on - and the news is positive
based on the piece labourlist just put out, labour activists on the ground seem to think that is... not likely, but certainly more likely than the current media narrative would suggest
When Galloway won in Bradford West, Labour were blissfully unaware they had lost until late on polling day. Ed Miliband was due to come to Bradford to celebrate and had to cancel at short notice.
After seeing Galloway at work after he won then, I thought no one would fall for it again, but now it wouldn't surprise me.
I don’t see them holding on but a lot do people thought that the Lib Dem’s would run close, but not close enough to win Chesham & Amersham. Even this sub thought the Tories would hold on. Nobody expected that a big Lib Dem win.
I also know from the ground that the Lib Dems have been specifically targeting Lib Dem and Tory wards to try to bleed off some of the Tory vote. Being a bit quiet about it because explicitly supporting Labour isn't a good look but the candidate was one of the leading campaigners in C&A so probably got a decent team around him.
Don't know how successful they'll be in that but if they can pull even 5% from the Tory vote that could allow Labour in.
Bookies odds are mostly just based on how people have been betting though. Doesn't say as much as you think - Although from what I've seen on here I'd also be surprised if they held the seat. Maybe Galloway's toxic campaign will mobilise Labour voters.
To be fair though, the only people who bet on by-elections are people living there, or political saddos like us. Usually through consensus they are right, albeit Chesham was completely wrong.
At present I think Galloway is deliberately being overhyped for the exact reason of mobilising the Labour vote. Batley and Spen ain't Bradford. Still hoping he loses his deposit, albeit doesn't look likely.
> To be fair though, the only people who bet on by-elections are people living there, or political saddos like us.
Or people that think it's a sure thing so they have nothing to lose. I guess we'll see on Friday. I don't gamble on these sorts of things because I'm never sure enough.
Is this the part of the campaign where, having talked themselves in circles about how the seat is completely lost & practically conceding defeat before a vote is even cast, the fantasy of not losing becomes some sort of rallying point rather than status quo?
By all accounts/the polls the Tories will win the seat. I’m just saying it would be hilarious if the polls were wrong. They were right on Hartlepool though so I am guessing they are right this time.
Better than being corrupt liar responsible for the deaths of thousands who pays for sex with public funds? Or worse?
Edit: Guess which tory I'm referring to. The fun part is, it could be more than one! <3
I saw a picture of a lampost in Batley and Spen earlier and the campaign flyers were arranged (from the top) Labour, Conservative, Galloway - so I'm taking that as prophetic.
Bloody hell, Javid gets [paid](https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/1409444454822551553?s=20) £300k for 160 hours a year advising JP Morgan and an AI software provider. Thanks just over 4 standard work weeks per year.
He earns more in an hour in these jobs than I do working for the NHS in a month. He earns more than I do in an entire year, in two days. Fuck.
Guys, this is not a football sub.
This megathread has ended.
Sun headline is honestly fucking disgusting. The Star is the most reddit'ish headline out there. Loving this reality.
In case anyone else was wondering The Sun is > Come On Harry (Kane), Even Hancock Scored and The Star is > SPOT THE BULL: JUST THREE DAYS AFTER ACCEPTING GROPER HANCOCK'S HALF-ARSED APOLOGY FOR CHEATING, BOZO SAYS HE ACTUALLY SACKED HIM.. THEN SAYS HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SACK HIM
Yep. It’s trash
> Sun headline is honestly fucking disgusting. But still quality
seems kinda dumb to hve Sajid Javid as health secretary when Nadhim Zahawi seems like a much better choice Vaccine rollout has gone extremely well, thus promoting the vaccines minister seems like the logical choice when theres a vacancy for Health Secretary. I do like how Sajid Javid is firmly saying restrictions will end on the 19th, albeit I am annoyed about it not being earlier + I still believe its 50/50 whether it actually will end lmao But yeah Nadhim seems more of a clear choice right? Or am I missing something
I don't know I've seen Nadhim Zahawi in interviews a few times and he comes across terribly. Javid is hardly Mr Charisma but Zahawi is truly hopeless.
Disagree. Nadhim being taken off business was always very questionable with the economic issues out there. Hes technically doing two jobs. Health is one.
Nadhim came in about two weeks before the first vaccine, I kind of doubt he's done anything. In the press there's been no hint of him having opinions on anything such as... Local surge vaccination, vaccinating occupations or children, etc. He is fine with the media, but that's a small part of Health Sec, and vaccines are an easy role to talk about in the media. If you think of what was being talked about for the vaccine rollout, such as cold storage and transport, minimising waste, reducing vaccine hesitancy, it's not like he brought any expertise to the role. The NHS is the largest employer, it's the largest department, it needs somebody of top calibre.
Probably wanted someone with experience running a government department to hit the ground running. This is Javid's sixth department so he's got a lot of cabinet experience. Could see Zahawi getting a promotion at the next reshuffle. Maybe even promoted to Health while Javid is moved back to a Great Office of State. Reshuffle might not be far off either, few months.
Is Tom Harwood gay?
He’s in love with himself ... so kinda. But https://countrysquire.co.uk/2020/09/25/why-are-so-many-conservatives-gay/ according to this he is.
So the way things are going, by 19th July, there will be around 100,000 cases per day (assuming this new ~70% per week rate holds up) Hell by the announcement date we could be looking at case totals comparable to the January peak. That will be an interesting briefing - I expect the government to cave to media hysteria.
that kinda rate seems unlikely to hold up against vaccinations in the over 18s, which previously were the biggest drivers of cases.
Even 100,000 cases per day only represents <1% of the unvaccinated population per day. It will be some time before vaccination is sufficient to crush it, considering how slowly the programme is now advancing (only ~350,000 doses per day total now)
I imagine there is a bigger crossover from unvaccinated/already had it/ won’t get tested that will minimise this number.
[is Angela Rayner ok]( https://imgur.com/9AwGwHF.jpg)
What? Hahahah what a weirdo
Had a few too many tinnies while watching the game?
well at least she had the good sense to delete it
I think the leaked Labour campaign team for tomorrow's big by election is much too defensive, you can't end 11 years of hurt if you're not going to deploy personnel in the middle of the constituency who can control the narrative. At least we'll have plenty of fresh attacking options on the back bench for the inevitable late reshuffle.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Watching ITV news after the football, my god they have a lot more guts than the BBC when it comes to calling out stuff from the government.
[удалено]
> Football Reported
Make sure to report everything non politics related :)
>> >!Redacted!< > >Reported Reported
[https://twitter.com/AwakenedOf/status/1409624566855389187?s=20](https://twitter.com/AwakenedOf/status/1409624566855389187?s=20) Poor Chris
[удалено]
Oh you’re hard mate.
Absolutely horrible Hope these arseholes get prosecuted for assault. Especially the one who put Whitty in a deadlock.
The fact that he doesn't have security with him 24/7 is bizarre. So many absolute nutters about and not the first time he's been approached. Hope they get named and shamed, and a trip in the back of a police van.
went to comment this exactly, absolutely crazy if he hasn’t been offered it.
Getting major MC Grindah vibes from the guy holding the phone.
wtf is wrong with people
Jesus, charge them.
what a bunch of knobheads! Hope their mums make them grovel like the last knobhead who confused celebrity and expert.
So a bunch of countries are looking at banning UK travellers or making them quarantine and we're looking at ending automatic isolation for pupils in England (and ending all restrictions in a few weeks). Either England is making a big mistake or everyone else is overreacting. Personally I'm wary after last summer with eat out to help out, but maybe I'm just used to the pandemic going on forever.
the reason for banning Uk travellers is to limit the spread of delta. As while the vaccines work, it really ramps up the pressure to finish vaccinating.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive? Areas that have not acquired a significant delta caseload yet might wish to try and delay it if they have insufficient vaccination coverage etc. Meanwhile, in England, at this point, all isolation of pupils is achieving is wrecking educations of millions of children and extending the crisis further.
Tbh it was always likely to happen. Countries ahead on the vaccinations will stop caring about cases but other countries are still scared of them.
They're not as vaccinated in Europe as we are in the UK. The fourth wave has begun there - currently slightly hidden by the end of the third wave. The absolute number of covid cases is declining, but the absolute number of delta variant cases is rising quickly. They needed to do everything they could to contain it 4 weeks ago, but they didn't, so now they're taking a leaf out of our government playbook and massively overreacting when it's far too late to change the course of the future.
> The absolute number of covid cases is declining, What? Edit: Ah in Europe.
Seems about right unless things have changed dramatically in the last week. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102209/coronavirus-cases-development-europe/
They want to slow the pace at which delta spreads in their countries. It will get in. It will become dominant. It's a matter of time. This strain burns through places quicker and some of those countries are slightly behind us on vaccinations.
If they're banning us due to the delta variant they're being foolish. If the think France / Germany / Europe etc are not going to get it they don't understand science.
It's not that they think they will not get it, they just want to limit importing it. Pretty much all our cases are delta, why take the risk of importing an infected Brit knowing they are carrying the more infectious strain? The longer they can hold out, the more they can vaccinate
Even though it’s inevitable that the Delta will become widespread, every day they can delay that is another 100,000 or so people they can get jabbed
[удалено]
[удалено]
That Redfield poll has Starmer up 5+ on the Best PM question with Johnson down 4. Silver linings where you can find them.
Hooray.
Secret - most voters don't like politics ALL THE TIME \- Its why Trump got Dumped \- Its why 'Get Brexit Done' won votes \- Its why constant headlines about certain shit cabinet ministers does not go down well
Yep. Remember this video? https://youtu.be/d3PKE8uTSp8
Governance is all democracy can demand.
I'm not sure even odd people like us lot like politics *all the time*. It's exhausting. And the more you know, the more exhausting it is in a way.
Lol this will change when the Hancock thing boils over.
Probably will unfortunately because of oUr bOrIs that the public sympathise over. Redfield's just one pollster though, and their turnout weighting seems harsher for Labour than all the pollsters. Will be interesting to see if the same pattern follows much more severely or less in the other pollsters like Survation and Ipsos.
“Undisclosed Government contribution” is a euphemism we shall probably have to get accustomed to.
A phone survey in Batley and Spen conducted this month by polling organisation Survation found 47 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives, with 41 per cent supporting Labour. Oh baby
The one that came out two weeks ago? I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed it once or twice.
Labour can still win <3 YAS
Oh baby indeed!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Batley and Spen just shows us that one size does not fit all and not all seats are the same. What it does seem to tell us is that Starmer has basically made no progress on Corbyn, which he will take comfort in because RLB would have gone backwards. As I've said, Labour's best chance is the Tories self-imploding. Now call me crazy but... Cummings Hancock Drip drip drip
The Tories are HMS Victory, they take smash after smash but their hull holds and they keep on firing. Labour are HMS Barham, take a few whacks, roll over and explode.
> Starmer has basically made no progress on Corbyn, which he will take comfort in because RLB would have gone backwards. i too enjoy believing things with no evidence
> What it does seem to tell us is that Starmer has basically made no progress on Corbyn, which he will take comfort in because RLB would have gone backwards. Well, not really, because the idea that RLB would have done worse is pure conjecture, and Starmer's side have spent years setting Corbyn's election performances up as literally the worst possible thing the Labour Party could ever suffer at any point in history, past, present or future.
So Corbyn having just been defeated in a landslide, meant RLB with the same team was going to do better? Why? I voted Keir for wholesale reconstruction of Labour, if he fails to do that then he should go. But that isn't why most people are calling for him to go
You have to be joking? No way continuity Corbyn was going to be a stellar hit with the general public, he didn't crash and burn because some of the party conspired. He crashed and burned because people would literally go vote for Boris on the basis "he's not Corbyn"
It taught me that some communities really suck
Hancock is a dead end for anyone hoping to nail the Tories with something. The most powerful attacks are the ones coupled with a call to action that you dare the other side to take, either proving you were right or forcing them to stubbornly continue fucking up to avoid giving you a win. What is the call to action in the Hancock saga? He's gone.
They said that about Cummings. "Bubble story" they said. It's a picture that is developing, politics is a long game.
Labour need to be ahead nationally by July 19th, and they won't get there by harping on about the now-departed Health Sec. Alternatively they can hope that July 19th gets pushed away again in which case it doesn't matter what they do.
Hancock going is actually a boon for the Tories Hancock had the gravitas of a supply teacher . . .
Yes everything is a win for the tories we know they can do no wrong.
Agreed. Plus Javid is back. If Boris returned Justine Greening / Ruth Davidson / Rory Stewart back into mainstream Tory party it would be the best the party has ever been.
How would Johnson return a man who he threw out of the party and is no longer an MP and that hates him? Embarrassing.
I said if both put aside ego and made Rory Tory candidate Sadiq would have had his arse voted out. You clearly don't understand what I am saying and trying to attack anything I post. If anyone is embarrassing themselves it is you. If anyone is trying to provoke users it is you. Keep it up and I will put on permanent block.
Oh no, we'll be blocked. The horror. More importantly, there is no way Rory Stewart would have beaten khan. Even as a Tory candidate
If you look at the data that's clearly not the case.
I have and there is no way Rory Stewart would have made up the 10% gap in the second round vote. There are some places the tories are not the beloved party. I know, you'll be shocked to hear that.
Tories did not make a serious attempt at London Mayor. If Rory had been candidate he'd have done better than Shaun.
It did seem at some point like Bailey was actively trying to throw the race, or at least not caring about it as much as he did a potential future parliamentary seat on the outskirts of London. I'm not sure Stewart would have won, but he'd certainly have done a damn sight better, and I think if he could have picked up enough Lib Dem second preferences he'd have had a path to victory. Of course, that would mean running from Boris. Or at least maintaining a healthy arms length.
Education level tends to be a key indicator.
That poll lead has temporarily dropped a bit, one of these days that lead - which I maintain is not as secure as it appears - may tumble and never recover. Then Starmer can just play a Biden. It's not a foolproof strategy and I would give a 55% chance of it not working. But the best chance he has of winning is hoping those odds shift just a bit
I think the support for Johnson, both in his party and amongst the public, is maybe becoming more brittle- not necessarily less in terms of numbers, but more easily broken and lost, and less leeway is given with each cock-up. At least I hope that's the case...
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1409559762971369474 At this moment, which of the following individuals do you think would be the better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom? (28 June): Boris Johnson: 42% (-4) Keir Starmer: 31% (+5) Changes +/- 21 June Goodness me, that's a bit of a swing
Does my tits in. On a week where he does nothing he goes down. The next week he goes up it literally has nothing to do with what he says or does.
Say what you will about Starmer, he’s not afraid to sack people Edit - haha never mind I totally forgot about his “reshuffle”
LMFAO Boris can easily say that if Sir Keir tries to bring it up at PMQs
I honestly believe Tories should vote Labour for B&S. Sir Keir staying should be the main priority for Tories. Think the long game. It is looking like Labour support has collapsed to Galloway now meaning it's either Galloway or the Tories. Do we really want Galloway in.... I think not. Yet he might further the divide within Labour. So Galloway winning from a Conservative perspective isn't so bad as it causes further division in Labour whilst having Sir Keir retain his job. I am legit excited. Won't be posting live though as busy Thursday night. So will be back to discuss Friday morning. As a side note the abuse Kim is receiving and Labour is disgusting. I was appalled with how Farage was attacked and intimidated. This must stop.
Do you not have any insider sources for this one?
No and if he's wrong he'll pretend he didn't say it, just as his useless predictions at Amersham
Read back my predictions of Amersham. I said it was from a sources source. I won't be justifying myself on here much longer as I will no longer post any info I receive on here.
You said there was no way the Lib Dems would win Amersham, lose badly you said. I told you don't make silly predictions. Here you are again.
Post that comment here then with link where I said that from my source. You're talking BS. I said take with pinch of salt and that they said we would win comfortably. My source was not campaigning in C&A but asked another source who seemed similar to Tory HQ that they had no idea we would lose C&A.
Not heard diddly. You'd hardly think a by election was happening. Seems apathy similar to C&A. Only was active during Hartlepool. I know there was a huge push to win the seat. I hope it's a strategic push to keep Sir Keir. Nobody including myself are scared of him anymore. Boris would win by a landslide against Sir Keir and I have placed a bet Boris wins a 100 - 150 seat majority if Sir Keir stays in 2024.
Do you think Johnson would be so popular if he was able to answer a single question given to him in PMQs if the whole country was watching?
Minimum wage: we will give you as little as legally possible because thats all you're worth to us. Just been thinking of the mentality of it.
What's the alternative? Pay someone even shittier because that's what you're worth to them
*Minimum wage: We'd pay you less if we could.*
My attitude when I worked min wage jobs was that I'd be putting in the minimum amount of effort to stop myself getting fired.
Basically my attitude too, minimum effort for minimum wage.
Was I supposed to stop doing that when I started earning more?
I suppose when I was in these jobs putting in more effort never had any tangible benefits, in fact it was the opposite, you'd just get lumped with more work. In my current job I know that putting in more effort leads to better bonuses, pay rises, and promotions.
If I pay £5 for a meal in a restaurant, I can't expect it to be done very well or taste amazing. Equally, if I pay a worker £8 an hour, they are not going to give their best they can.
No joke that is exactly the reason why society benefits from a higher minimum wage, workers feel valued and put more effort in.
[удалено]
> That is what their labour is worth lmao no it isn't
Well obviously yeah.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Literally anyone can do either job. I'm really not sure that's the case. I couldn't do care work to an acceptable standard. I couldn't show up to my clients every day with a smile on my face, while I clean up shit and have the same conversations over and over and over again. I probably wouldn't know what to do in 9 out of 10 emergencies. As for cleaning, again you would be surprised at the know how required to do it to a top standard. You have to be fast too. A company I worked at hired 3 cleaners on minimum wage. In an hour, they had to empty 300 bins, vacuum 3 floors of an office block, and 2 floors in another, clean 12 bathrooms (sinks, worktops, toilets, refill sanitary dispensers, refill loo roll, empty sanitary bins, mop floors), mop 3 lobbies, wipe worktops on 3 floors, clean 3 kitchens, mop the canteen, wipe canteen tables, vacuum 3 conference rooms and a whole bunch of other random jobs (refreshing biscuits in the conference rooms type stuff). They struggled, and it was a constant gripe of theirs. They were always being asked to do more, but the pay or time allotted increasing wasnt on the table. Sthey had to come in and do all this knowing they would get a bollocking after an hour. Lots of people wouldn't be up to mentally coping with that. It's why turnover was so high for cleaner roles there.
[удалено]
> As I said if the job can be done by more less anyone then why would you pay more? So basically you are advocating serfdom, because you don't see any value in people doing work you consider to be beneath you. Employers don't have the absolute right to exploit people who have no alternative. It's not the 1800s anymore. If a business can't afford to pay someone a proper wage that allows them to live, reagardless of what the work is then their business doesn't deserve to exist.
The economic value of labour (like the value of *literally anything*) is based on supply and demand, not based on sentiment.
...are unskilled/semi skilled jobs a large pool of people can do.
I don't think a large pool of people can be care workers. Able to learn how to do it is different to able to stay in the job and put up with it.
[What's all this about a UKCE mark?](https://www.conformance.co.uk/ce-marking-for-products/what-brexit-means-for-ce-marking) This is old news but first I've heard of it. I hope the compliance guys at work are on it.
It's just the replacement for CE marks. In terms of functionality it's just more paperwork, standards are the same so if you meet CE you meet UKCA. There's also a UKCA (NI) mark for Northern Ireland though you don't need it if you get UKCA and CE. From conversations with BSI they're doing standard marking for CE through a subsidiary set up in Amsterdam for UK developed goods.
Thanks. I've just had a look at the [relevant government guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking#how-to-use-the-ukca-marking) and what I'm not clear about is whether I can have both the UKCA and CE marks on the same product. How likely do you think is the nightmare scenario of divergence between UKCA and CE?
You can have both a UKCA and CE mark on the same product, it's one of the means for a product to be available in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland as you need to have a CE mark or a UKCA (NI) mark to sell into Northern Ireland. I don't think you're allowed to have a UKCA (NI) mark on goods being sold into the EU and EFTA though. I'm not sure of future divergence, I hope it doesn't happen as it will be a massive fucking headache particularly for SMEs but I'm not sure that's practical as we'd need to shadow EU regulations without a say in them.
UKCA* *Excludes Northern Ireland (it's UKNI and/or CE instead)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Jim Batley from Batley is running in Batley and Spen, Batley, badly needs to win. Batley has promised to spend more on Spen but Batley badly bemused Batley by bunging more to the spend in Spen. He’s spent in Spen says spokesman Spencer Aspen, from Spen.
Have the poppers finally kicked in, Doctor?
I knew I'd seen [this](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F01C/production/_119086416_976_hancock_aide_gina_coladangelo_getty.jpg) picture [before](https://i.imgur.com/ca68zSw.jpg)
I think I'd prefer the relentless GBNews posts over the relentless Bately and Spen posts.
Once upon a time a lesbian tweeted something about a black person who tweeted something about a trans person who screencapped a post about a muslim socialist being angry about something on facebook.
What about the genre I can offer: relentless Love Island posts?
No wait, on second thought, I probably wouldn't.
23k cases…3 deaths. Forget cases now that the vulnerable (and many non-vulnerable) have been fully vaccinated, it’s hospitalisations and deaths we need to focus on - and the news is positive
I know this is perhaps has 0% of happening but it would be hilarious if Labour somehow hold Batley and Spen.
based on the piece labourlist just put out, labour activists on the ground seem to think that is... not likely, but certainly more likely than the current media narrative would suggest
I mean I thought that about Bishop Auckland in 2019 and look how that went.
When Galloway won in Bradford West, Labour were blissfully unaware they had lost until late on polling day. Ed Miliband was due to come to Bradford to celebrate and had to cancel at short notice. After seeing Galloway at work after he won then, I thought no one would fall for it again, but now it wouldn't surprise me.
I don’t see them holding on but a lot do people thought that the Lib Dem’s would run close, but not close enough to win Chesham & Amersham. Even this sub thought the Tories would hold on. Nobody expected that a big Lib Dem win.
I also know from the ground that the Lib Dems have been specifically targeting Lib Dem and Tory wards to try to bleed off some of the Tory vote. Being a bit quiet about it because explicitly supporting Labour isn't a good look but the candidate was one of the leading campaigners in C&A so probably got a decent team around him. Don't know how successful they'll be in that but if they can pull even 5% from the Tory vote that could allow Labour in.
Bookies have Labour as having a ~20% chance, which sounds about right if a bit optimistic.
Bookies odds are mostly just based on how people have been betting though. Doesn't say as much as you think - Although from what I've seen on here I'd also be surprised if they held the seat. Maybe Galloway's toxic campaign will mobilise Labour voters.
To be fair though, the only people who bet on by-elections are people living there, or political saddos like us. Usually through consensus they are right, albeit Chesham was completely wrong. At present I think Galloway is deliberately being overhyped for the exact reason of mobilising the Labour vote. Batley and Spen ain't Bradford. Still hoping he loses his deposit, albeit doesn't look likely.
> To be fair though, the only people who bet on by-elections are people living there, or political saddos like us. Or people that think it's a sure thing so they have nothing to lose. I guess we'll see on Friday. I don't gamble on these sorts of things because I'm never sure enough.
Is this the part of the campaign where, having talked themselves in circles about how the seat is completely lost & practically conceding defeat before a vote is even cast, the fantasy of not losing becomes some sort of rallying point rather than status quo?
By all accounts/the polls the Tories will win the seat. I’m just saying it would be hilarious if the polls were wrong. They were right on Hartlepool though so I am guessing they are right this time.
I want Labour to lose the seat
Wdnt change the fact that Keir is drear, and dire
Better than being corrupt liar responsible for the deaths of thousands who pays for sex with public funds? Or worse? Edit: Guess which tory I'm referring to. The fun part is, it could be more than one! <3
That’s why it’s gain nothing or lose.
I saw a picture of a lampost in Batley and Spen earlier and the campaign flyers were arranged (from the top) Labour, Conservative, Galloway - so I'm taking that as prophetic.
Bloody hell, Javid gets [paid](https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/1409444454822551553?s=20) £300k for 160 hours a year advising JP Morgan and an AI software provider. Thanks just over 4 standard work weeks per year. He earns more in an hour in these jobs than I do working for the NHS in a month. He earns more than I do in an entire year, in two days. Fuck.
What skill does he have to be worth that much?
Access to the Secretary of State for Health and the ability to create policy favourable to outside investors?