General British politics discussion thread

Joe_ Public

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is she a temp while Tony Lloyd recovers from Covid19?

Tony Lloyd has been admitted to hospital within the past 24 hours, though said to be stable. Hugely popular, conscientious politician. Wish him the best.

beggars_bush

If the PM dies, what happens?

BonnieSituation

beggars_bush wrote: »

If the PM dies, what happens?

Dover Raab is in charge initially anyway.

The PM is only an MP who goes to the Queen to be nominated as PM as she believes they command the confidence of the HOC.

So it could be ANYONE who goes to the Palace. Convention (like everything in the HOC) means that it it is usually the leader of the largest party/grouping.

So party rules dictate that their own way to get a leader.
In the case of the Tories they can work that out for themselves I guess.

Four PMs in 4 years is some go!

AllForIt

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Very happy to see Angela Rayner, on day 9 of her self imposed 14 day isolation, call Hancock out on Ridge this morning. This is the opposition they need.

"I'm disappointed that Matt Hancock, after seven days of having the virus, went out when the World Health Organisation has said you should self-isolate for 14 days.

"I think it's right that we do that because I cannot stress enough the severity of the symptoms that I have suffered, as you can tell from how breathless I am still now, and I'm day nine, day 10.

"I think the Government really need to give that clarity and continue to support people doing the right thing."

Hancock had mild symptoms. Therefore from the day he learned he had it some days probably had passed before he got himself tested.

Raynor on the other hand had much more severe symptoms than Hancock, which would suggest she was aware of her condition earlier than Hancock was in terms of day 1 of contracting it.

Whether this is a valid point or not, I would still say that she made a petty point, and a contradictory one, because earlier in the same interview she said it's fine for Hancock to criticize ppl for going outdoors against guidelines but some ppl don't have back gardens.

So, which is it Raynor, follow the guidelines to the letter or break them if you feel you have some socialist minded excuse to.

Honestly, the Labour party need a good media adviser to stop them making fools of themselves.

Joe_ Public

We're all flapping in the wind a bit here but education is only ever the click of a button away.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200327091234.htm

"A a new study, researchers found that half of the patients they treated for mild COVID-19 infection still had coronavirus for up to eight days after symptoms disappeared. The research letter was published online in the American Thoracic Society's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine."

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Hancock had mild symptoms. Therefore from the day he learned he had it some days probably had passed before he got himself tested.

Raynor on the other hand had much more severe symptoms than Hancock, which would suggest she was aware of her condition earlier than Hancock was in terms of day 1 of contracting it.

Whether this is a valid point or not, I would still say that she made a petty point, and a contradictory one, because earlier in the same interview she said it's fine for Hancock to criticize ppl for going outdoors against guidelines but some ppl don't have back gardens.

So, which is it Raynor, follow the guidelines to the letter or break them if you feel you have some socialist minded excuse to.

Honestly, the Labour party need a good media adviser to stop them making fools of themselves.

Oh, for goodness’ sake.

First off, you would probably make fewer errors if you stopped analysing this along ideological lines and didn’t try to categorise positions as “socialist-minded”. Socialism is neither here nor there; this is about science.

First off, isolation for those who are symptomatic: UK advice is that, if you have COVID-like symptoms, you should self-isolate for 7 days from the onset of the symptoms. If, after 7 days, if you no longer had a temperature, you can end your self-isolation, even if you still have other symptoms - e.g. a cough.

But WHO advice is that you should self-isolate for 14 days from the disappearance of symptoms.

It’s obvious that the UK guidance is much more relaxed that the WHO guidance. There may be reasons for this, and they may be good reasons or bad reasons. But we’ll never know unless somebody asks the question, and gets an answer. And the question is less likely to be asked if nobody points to the discrepancy between the UK advice and the WHO advice. Pointing to that discrepancy and asking the government to account for it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and if you are distracted from noticing this by the realisation that the person rasing the issue is a socialist, well, that doesn’t reflect well on you.

Secondly, social distancing. You suggest that Rayner is contradicting herself by urging observance of the WHO isolation guidelines while taking a more flexible approach to the UK’s social distancing rules. But you’re comparing apples and oranges here. In the first place, there’s a difference between what political leaders should do themselves way of following best practice and setting a good example, and what they should compel citizens to do by force of law, with threat of punishment. It’s not at all contradictory to say that the social distancing rules, if they are to apply to everybody, need to be diverse enough and flexible enough to take account of the widely different circumstances which people face, and at the same time to suggest that there is no apparent circumstance in Hancock’s own situation to suggest that he should not follow best practice in self-isolation.

(You make the point that Hancock had “mild” symptoms. This is irrelevant; the reason why Hancock should self-isolate has nothing to do with how sick he feels, and everything to do with how infectious he is or may be.)

CrabRevolution

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, for goodness’ sake.

First off, you would probably make fewer errors if you stopped analysing this along ideological lines and didn’t try to categorise positions as “socialist-minded”. Socialism is neither here nor there; this is about science.

First off, isolation for those who are symptomatic: UK advice is that, if you have COVID-like symptoms, you should self-isolate for 7 days from the onset of the symptoms. If, after 7 days, if you no longer had a temperature, you can end your self-isolation, even if you still have other symptoms - e.g. a cough.

But WHO advice is that you should self-isolate for 14 days from the disappearance of symptoms.

It’s obvious that the UK guidance is much more relaxed that the WHO guidance. There may be reasons for this, and they may be good reasons or bad reasons. But we’ll never know unless somebody asks the question, and gets an answer. And the question is less likely to be asked if nobody points to the discrepancy between the UK advice and the WHO advice. Pointing to that discrepancy and asking the government to account for it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and if you are distracted from noticing this by the realisation that the person rasing the issue is a socialist, well, that doesn’t reflect well on you.

Secondly, social distancing. You suggest that Rayner is contradicting herself by urging observance of the WHO isolation guidelines while taking a more flexible approach to the UK’s social distancing rules. But you’re comparing apples and oranges here. In the first place, there’s a difference between what political leaders should do themselves way of following best practice and setting a good example, and what they should compel citizens to do by force of law, with threat of punishment. It’s not at all contradictory to say that the social distancing rules, if they are to apply to everybody, need to be diverse enough and flexible enough to take account of the widely different circumstances which people face, and at the same time to suggest that there is no apparent circumstance in Hancock’s own situation to suggest that he should not follow best practice in self-isolation.

(You make the point that Hancock had “mild” symptoms. This is irrelevant; the reason why Hancock should self-isolate has nothing to do with how sick he feels, and everything to do with how infectious he is or may be.)

Well we all know Johnson only apparently had "mild" symptoms as well...until he was admitted to the ICU, and even then it was only "a precaution".

It seems even symptoms from a disease are being subjected to political spin now.

Peregrinus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Well we all know Johnson only apparently had "mild" symptoms as well...until he was admitted to the ICU, and even then it was only "a precaution".

It seems even symptoms from a disease are being subjected to political spin now.

To be fair, when doctors say that a CV sufferer has "mild" symptoms, that just means that the patient is not so sick as to require admission to hospital. What doctors call a mild dose of CV might to you and me seem like being very sick indeed. This particular sense of "mild" was not developed specially for Boris Johnson.

So, yeah, Johnson had "mild" symptoms of CV in the sense that an awful lot of people who are very sick indeed have "mild" symptoms of CV.

Leroy42

Emily Maitlis gave a very good opening to Newsnight last night, taking on this narrative that somehow Johnson will get through because of character and will to fight. It sounds great, but it of course makes it sound like those that die just didn't have the bottle to beat the virus.

It complete nonsense of course, if Johnson survives it will be down to luck in terms of genetics, severity, speed of treatment or whatever, but nothing to do with his being a leader or is fight or is need to survive for Britain or other such rubbish coming out.

The last few days has seen people come out and almost make Johnson out to be some super human. Tireless, fit, determined, a fighter, unbeatable on the tennis court! It is crass and insensitive to all those that have lost loved ones to continue on with such a narrative.

She also touched on the 'great leveller' rubbish that is being spouted. Of course technically the virus doesn't see wealth or privilege but of course those with more resources have more options to reduce the risk. WFH, take a break from work, extend holidays. Those with less have far fewer choices and in many cases will have to work simply because there wealthy bosses deem it so (whilst staying well away from the shop themselves)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6wIcpdJyCI

CrabRevolution

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair, when doctors say that a CV sufferer has "mild" symptoms, that just means that the patient is not so sick as to require admission to hospital. What doctors call a mild dose of CV might to you and me seem like being very sick indeed. This particular sense of "mild" was not developed specially for Boris Johnson.

So, yeah, Johnson had "mild" symptoms of CV in the sense that an awful lot of people who are very sick indeed have "mild" symptoms of CV.

That may be when a Doctor uses it, but the Downing Street spokespeople seemed to me to be using it to mean "the virus isn't affecting him much". They constantly downplayed his symptoms and said he'd be back in work any day now.

Now that's not to say they were necessarily lying, since it could be what they honestly believed, or maybe his symptoms were mild up until he took a turn for the worse.

My own personal thoughts are that some politicians see getting the virus as a sign of weakness. So when they do get it, they do their utmost to assure everyone they're not really affected by it and will be back to normal soon. For many this will be true, but in some cases (most notably Johnson) it just doesn't ring true. And as said in the post above, when it becomes patently clear that he's not brushing the virus off, it's just presented as evidence of his strong character and will to fight.

It doesn't help that a lot of these same politicians see the disease the same way they'd see terrorists, as though it has goals. For the first few weeks, their total ignoring of social distancing, proudly shaking hands, insisting life go on as normal etc. struck me as though they thought the virus had a psychological agenda, and that taking drastic actions and changing their behavior would be letting the virus "win". I feel this wish to avoid being seen as weak plays a bigger role in the response to Covid-19 than you'd think.

But again, that's my personal conjecture.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, yeah, Johnson had "mild" symptoms of CV in the sense that an awful lot of people who are very sick indeed have "mild" symptoms of CV.

Many people had a "mild" version of this disease back in January (including my wife) but the doctor just said it was a bug that caused mild pneumonia!

So I am very much of the opinion that this is the second wave of the illness we're seeing now.

Tom Mann Centuria

Kendall, Streeting and Phillips all end up in the shadow cabinet.

Lemming

CrabRevolution wrote: »

That may be when a Doctor uses it, but the Downing Street spokespeople seemed to me to be using it to mean "the virus isn't affecting him much". They constantly downplayed his symptoms and said he'd be back in work any day now.

There was a young woman - mid thirties on BBC4 radio the other evening talking about what her experience of the hospital system was regards contracting the virus. Short synopsis, even after being released from ICU and back to a general ward the virus will have kicked the living sh1t out of you if your case was severe enough to warrant a trip to ICU at all right now with only the most severe cases being admitted. If Johnson was severe enough to warrant a spell in ICU, he wont be coming out of the ward for at least a few days still and it'll be a couple of weeks before he's fit enough to return to normal (such as it is).

That is if of course assuming that everything that we are being fed is correct. The current crop in government circles have set a depressingly low threshold for dishonesty.

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

The current crop in government circles have set a depressingly low threshold for dishonesty.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has repeatedly refused to appear in front of the Home Affairs select committee to discuss the coronavirus outbreak.

Ms Patel instead said she would only appear “towards the end of the month”.

This at a time when police have been given temporary powers to enforce the lockdown that's preventing thousands of deaths.

Headshot

A really smart move imo

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-appoints-jess-phillips-to-shadow-cabinet-as-he-reveals-full-line-up-11971346


"Jess Phillips, the outspoken Labour backbencher who briefly stood for the party leadership, has been handed a key front bench post by Sir Keir Starmer.

She has been appointed shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding,"

A smart position to have her in

AllForIt

Headshot wrote: »

A really smart move imo

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-appoints-jess-phillips-to-shadow-cabinet-as-he-reveals-full-line-up-11971346


"Jess Phillips, the outspoken Labour backbencher who briefly stood for the party leadership, has been handed a key front bench post by Sir Keir Starmer.

She has been appointed shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding,"

A smart position to have her in

Not really a front roll is it. It's keeping her in and keeping her out at the same time. That is a smart move. Purgatory!

CrabRevolution

AllForIt wrote: »

Not really a front roll is it. It's keeping her in and keeping her out at the same time. That is a smart move. Purgatory!

Not to downplay domestic violence but it must be the least priority role possible unless it also involves child protection/vulnerable care etc.

Leroy42

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Not to downplay domestic violence but it must be the least priority role possible unless it also involves child protection/vulnerable care etc.

It certainly has been treated as such in the past. Hopefully they are actually putting her there to make a difference rather than simply pawn her off.

fiveleavesleft

Interesting bit of stir in the Labour party over the weekend. Perhaps Starmer's first headache.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-investigation-will-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071

BonnieSituation

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Interesting bit of stir in the Labour party over the weekend. Perhaps Starmer's first headache.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-investigation-will-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071

First item on the agenda: The Split

beggars_bush

Johnson gets out of hospital, goes straight to his second residence

After visiting his first residence

One rule for the masses, another for the elite

kowloon

It's going to be pretty difficult to sell off any part of the NHS now without this coming back to bite him.

Joe_ Public

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Interesting bit of stir in the Labour party over the weekend. Perhaps Starmer's first headache.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-investigation-will-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071

Only one little piece i could offer Keir Starmer: stick to 2019 manifesto like glue. It wasnt what lost election. People liked it, they genuinely want most of those things. Just present it in a better way.

Otherwise, good luck steering a path through that murk.

ArmaniJeanss

beggars_bush wrote: »

Johnson gets out of hospital, goes straight to his second residence

After visiting his first residence

One rule for the masses, another for the elite

They voted him PM (I'd much prefer they hadn't). But given that they did, it doesn't seem unreasonable that he'd go to PM Residence One to pick up whatever he needs and then go to PM Residence Two to recuperate where he gets some privacy and space.
It surely falls comfortably within the 'travelling for essential work' rules anyway.

Tom Mann Centuria

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Interesting bit of stir in the Labour party over the weekend. Perhaps Starmer's first headache.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-investigation-will-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071

And Starmer wants one of the people highlighted in the report, who actively campaigning against Corbyn and a Labour victory during the previous election to be the new General Secretary.

Plenty of MPs have made their opinions known, including Andy Burnham who is far from being a left wing MP.

fiveleavesleft

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

And Starmer wants one of the people highlighted in the report, who actively campaigning against Corbyn and a Labour victory during the previous election to be the new General Secretary.

Plenty of MPs have made their opinions known, including Andy Burnham who is far from being a left wing MP.

Yes & she comes across as a pretty vile woman. Starmer surely can't let her have the gig now. Have you read any of it? What a mad bunch.

One funny bit amongst the bile, they were relishing Corbyn getting smashed in 2017 to be replaced by Tom Watson, they called it "Operation Cupcake":D

Tom Mann Centuria

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Yes & she comes across as a pretty vile woman. Starmer surely can't let her have the gig now. Have you read any of it? What a mad bunch.

One funny bit amongst the bile, they were relishing Corbyn getting smashed in 2017 to be replaced by Tom Watson, they called it "Operation Cupcake":D

Well it'd be hard to imagine her getting the gig, especially when her husband Jon Ashworth shot down Dawn Butler's assertion than McNicol et al. had been hampering the AS inquiry. Turned out Butler was right.

BonnieSituation

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So not only is the UK death rate per million is 2.5-3X of Ireland (Despite having NHS and Ireland not)

They are not counting people dying in old people homes
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52275823

Which here in Ireland has been about half of all the dead so far

UK Politics (specifically Tory policies) are directly responsible for a death rate 4-5X larger than Ireland

Am I glad I and my family and older relatives do not live in such a sh**hole country with these "politicians"

I can hear the shrill cries of "Britbasher!" from here.

Capt'n Midnight

Bigging up small stuff to make it look like a win.
55,000 gowns won't go far when there's twice that number of doctors and six times that number of nurses in the NHS, not to mention porters and cleaners, the other emergency services, carers and volunteers.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/nhs-issues-new-ppe-guidance-due-to-shortage-of-surgical-gowns-1.4231836

Mr Hancock told the House of Commons health committee on Friday that surgical gowns were the “pressure point” in Britain’s shortage of PPE. “We have another 55,000 gowns arriving today, and we’re working on the acquisition internationally of more gowns, but it is a challenge.”

In other supply chain news
There is a ferry carrying food and medicine that's being delayed

The vessel carries food, medicine and other supplies between Liverpool and Dublin.

BBC News NI understands some of the freight is destined for Northern Ireland.

beggars_bush

P&O need to pay their bills