bickster Posted December 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2020 7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Could the biggest difference be the mass testing? On this point, absolutely not. Mass testing was only available in Liverpool and not the other 5 Boroughs. There is also very little evidence to suggest that it has made any difference whatsoever. They've only found around 200 people with no symptoms that had the virus. All the Boroughs have dropped fairly consistently with each other. EDIT: If any borough has dropped its rate faster its going to be Knowsley or The Wirral and not Liverpool. Knowsley was much higher when we went into regional Lockdown and now its not far behind Liverpool at all. The Wirral is likely to be a geography thing more than anything as it consists of lots of rural towns and villages outside of Birkenhead and Wallasey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 I really haven't been following the mass testing story closely, but didn't it have fairly poor take-up? My understanding was that they Made A Big Announcement but then the actual reality was much more small-scale, but as I say I may well be wrong. I think they've also announced a plan to do something similar in Manchester now as well, though I don't think it's started yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2020 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: I really haven't been following the mass testing story closely, but didn't it have fairly poor take-up? My understanding was that they Made A Big Announcement but then the actual reality was much more small-scale, but as I say I may well be wrong. I think they've also announced a plan to do something similar in Manchester now as well, though I don't think it's started yet. It's hard to follow closely tbh because the Councillors and Mayor Chippy Tits have been making false claims throughout it running about how brilliant its been and what a great affect it's had. The figures do not back this up on the Covid Dashboard Any effect it was going to have would only just about be being made apparent in the figures, Yet Chippy Tits and his mates have been claiming it as a great success for weeks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2020 3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: To use probably a bad poker analogy - I'm a bad poker player - Corbyn tends to be someone who plays every time he has an even half-decent hand (and even often when he doesn't) and doesn't know when to fold. Starmer tends to be someone who folds all the time, and only plays if he's paid the blinds. A more effective leader would probably be somewhere between these two in how they whipped the party TBH. I don't think I agree completely on the analogy, but get where you're coming from (but I'll be even worse than you at Poker.) Anyway, I wanted to say that the vote (is there one?) on any Brexit deal that the Tories manage to get with the EU will be the first test of Starmer with all this voting with/against/abstaining - the ones so far have been of little consequence in reality - but the Brexit one will have much more of a long term impact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 21 minutes ago, blandy said: Anyway, I wanted to say that the vote (is there one?) on any Brexit deal that the Tories manage to get with the EU will be the first test of Starmer with all this voting with/against/abstaining - the ones so far have been of little consequence in reality - but the Brexit one will have much more of a long term impact. It's really a case of least-worst option, and they're all pretty terrible. Voting against is a bit of a non-starter. It wouldn't be a vote on good versus bad, it would a vote on shit versus really really shit. So you don't actively vote for really really shit. I think abstaining is the morally right thing to do, but it's probably politically the one that opens the door to the most damage in the short-term as it'll just be a return to "Labour still don't have a Brexit position", and will allow the scum in charge to deflect the consequences onto that handy soundbite. I suspect they'll vote for it - and I think the calculation is so that in February when everything is chaos he can frame it as "the deal was fine, you're just incompetent and fact that the country is on fire is nothing to do with Brexit, it's just your government". But when the history books are written, they'll show Labour as having dipped their hands in the blood of some of the worst legislation brought before Parliament. TLDR, I think he'll sacrifice the longer-term reputation of the party for shorter-term electoral gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, ml1dch said: It's really a case of least-worst option, and they're all pretty terrible. Voting against is a bit of a non-starter. It wouldn't be a vote on good versus bad, it would a vote on shit versus really really shit. So you don't actively vote for really really shit. I think abstaining is the morally right thing to do, but it's probably politically the one that opens the door to the most damage in the short-term as it'll just be a return to "Labour still don't have a Brexit position", and will allow the scum in charge to deflect the consequences onto that handy soundbite. I suspect they'll vote for it - and I think the calculation is so that in February when everything is chaos he can frame it as "the deal was fine, you're just incompetent and fact that the country is on fire is nothing to do with Brexit, it's just your government". But when the history books are written, they'll show Labour as having dipped their hands in the blood of some of the worst legislation brought before Parliament. TLDR, I think he'll sacrifice the longer-term reputation of the party for shorter-term electoral gain. I dunno. I mean Brexit is going to cause ruin. Any party that votes in favour of it gets tarnished with "wanting (and having wanted)" that ruin. IN 6, 12, 24 months, when the Country is in an even worse mess, there will be real anger, anger that lasts and lasts - like with the Iraq war stuff. So Starmer's got a almost impossible choice to make - vote for something terrible, because the (theoretical) alternative is worse, or vote to approve something terrible and forever get told "you voted for it", or abstain and get short term accusations of still not knowing where they stand. Voting for it is (for me, personally) a terrible choice - they shouldn't do that. Vote against - it'll go through anyway, or Abstain - Hmmm. 50-50 call really. I think I'd want them to vote against to be honest, but expect they'll abstain. I just really hope they don't support the introduction of ruin and mayhem. The long game is vote against, IMO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 On 02/12/2020 at 14:33, blandy said: I think I'd want them to vote against to be honest, but expect they'll abstain. I just really hope they don't support the introduction of ruin and mayhem. The long game is vote against, IMO. There's no option that isn't a vote in favour of ruin and mayhem. And as I suspected, they'll be voting in favour of whatever is brought before Parliament. Whenever that might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2020 26 minutes ago, ml1dch said: There's no option that isn't a vote in favour of ruin and mayhem. And as I suspected, they'll be voting in favour of whatever is brought before Parliament. Whenever that might be. I think there’s some big caveats to that assertion. Firstly, there’s parliamentary maths. Labour outing against a deal won’t kill it. Labour not voting at all isn’t a vote “for” anything. I wonder how the SNP will vote? or the LDs etc. I reckon they’ll vote against. No reason why Labour can’t do the same, IMO. “This deal meets none of the promises you made, to leavers and remainers, not one. It’s a big sack of dead chickens come home to roost, now own the consequences of your lies and incompetence you Tory monkey fudgers” 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 Yeah they're fairly safe voting against knowing that it won't fail anyway. All of the alternatives are worse for Labour. Vote for it and become part of the crew who inflicted brexit, abstain and become known as the Labstain Party. Or vote against and get to say we did all we could. If it did somehow get voted down with something really unexpected happening, there would be panicked amendments and revotes with bribes to MPs etc so it would get passed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 This looks really bad. I don't know exactly what's she's been suspended for but I've seen some people say for it's for antisemitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, darrenm said: If it did somehow get voted down with something really unexpected happening This is the thing. I mean they talk to each other, MPs. They will know in advance, that the tories will be 3 line whipped to vote for a deal. With the majority the Gov't has, the oppo parties can work out what's what in order to ensure there's not even a theoretical possibility of an accidental reject the deal vote succeeding. They've got free reign to choose how to vote, as parties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, blandy said: I think there’s some big caveats to that assertion. Firstly, there’s parliamentary maths. Labour outing against a deal won’t kill it. Labour not voting at all isn’t a vote “for” anything. I wonder how the SNP will vote? or the LDs etc. I reckon they’ll vote against. No reason why Labour can’t do the same, IMO. “This deal meets none of the promises you made, to leavers and remainers, not one. It’s a big sack of dead chickens come home to roost, now own the consequences of your lies and incompetence you Tory monkey fudgers” I've not said that Labour should vote in favour of it. I've said that they will. I expect that the SNP and Lib Dems will vote against, precisely for the reasons you've given. In my opinion abstention is best of three terrible choices. Edited December 3, 2020 by ml1dch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2020 20 minutes ago, ml1dch said: I've not said that Labour should vote in favour of it. I've said that they will. I expect that the SNP and Lib Dems will vote against, precisely for the reasons you've given. In my opinion abstention is best of three terrible choices. Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with the second part of what you said - just the first part - "There's no option that isn't a vote in favour of ruin and mayhem". I quoted the second part, because I then went on to talk about how they needn't vote for it. I expect they will, too, but think voting against is marginally a better choice, but could easily be persuaded that abstaining is the better choice. They could make an argument either way - the one for abstaining is essentially the same one as voting against it "we accept the nation voted to leave, though not with this pile of crap deal which is the opposite of what you promised them, so we're not going to vote for the big steaming jobby you own this and the consequences of your lies and incompetence you Tory monkey fudgers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, blandy said: Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with the second part of what you said - just the first part - "There's no option that isn't a vote in favour of ruin and mayhem". How is that incorrect? Vote against- ruin and mayhem is the result. Abstain - ruin and mayhem Vote for - yep, still ruin and mayhem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 4, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2020 4 hours ago, ml1dch said: How is that incorrect? Vote against- ruin and mayhem is the result. Abstain - ruin and mayhem Vote for - yep, still ruin and mayhem. Abstaining by definition isn’t a vote “for”. Ditto voting against the Tory deal ( if they get one) isn’t a vote “for”. I’m with you on it’s going to be ruinous, whatever the outcome , but to my eyes only voting for whatever deal is, well, voting for ruin. Anything else is not,. The tories own this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 @bickster is this the guy you always speak highly of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 So, as an aside to the accusations above, Liverpool is one of only two places in the U.K. where I personally choose not to work anymore. Due to local construction contract ‘practises’. ' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 4, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2020 15 minutes ago, Seat68 said: @bickster is this the guy you always speak highly of? Yep, Chippy Tits. And without even looking at the story it will be about Redrow. Amazing how many new Redrow housing estates have been popping up all over Liverpool. They really shouldn't have gone full steam ahead with the estate that bordered Calderstones Park, which involved some chicanery of moving a minuature railway into the park from its former home and a few other bits of land sales (council land) that was green space (but not apparently). They should have learned from the Sefton Park Meadows attempted sell off that it was a bad idea. He's also the corrupt toss pot that used council money to engage lawyers to defend his wrongful dismissal case against his former employers (A School in Crosby), which he also lost. He wanted to be still employed by them even though he was in his second 4 year stint as Liverpool Mayor and hadn't set foot in the school for years 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 4, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2020 Oh and rumour has it that none other than a very well known former Assistant Leader of Liverpool City Council might just be the 72 year old man from Aigburth that was one of the others arrested I also may have been wide of the mark with Redrow (though that rumour has been around a good while), this might actually be to do with companies called West Tree Estates and West Tree Developments and a plot of land in Toxteth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: So, as an aside to the accusations above, Liverpool is one of only two places in the U.K. where I personally choose not to work anymore. Due to local construction contract ‘practises’. ' Where's the other one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts