Dunge

People who couldn’t cope with the truth of a deadly virus running out of control. Not a justification, more an observation. There is no excuse for that behaviour.

It has been suggested that we shouldn’t hold our elections at the same time as America, so on that basis next May would be a good idea. Not that I expect the Conservatives to follow that advice if the polls stay anything like as they are now.

Like it or not, you have to make these decisions when in power. Example: If you could save the life of one unknown 70-year-old but doing so would wipe £1bn off the economy, would you do it? And once you’ve decided No and accepted the concept, what number is reasonable? It’s also worth noting that asking/telling people to give up their freedoms was a massive thing, particularly at the time. We’d never done anything like that before in peacetime. I remember when I first saw the Chinese lockdowns, I thought: What on Earth is going to happen if they try to implement that here? As it happened, the vast majority abided and stuck to it. But this wasn’t a small ask and neither should it be considered as such. It’s pretty much a given now that the prospect of letting people die and letting Covid run through was discussed at the top level. Honestly, that’s what government should be. It’s their job to consider all the options. Whatever was actually said, the fact remains that we ended up with lockdowns. That was what was decided in the end. Should they have done things differently from the beginning? Certainly. Was lockdown the right thing? On balance it looks like it was, although it’s not without its negatives. But these accusations of “how could they even suggest letting people die” miss the point to me.

Unless anything’s changed, the advice in this country was that a week after testing positive the first time you were no longer infectious. But I haven’t checked up on the advice in a long time.

In fact I predict: Give it a month or two and Farage will be talking about suing ITV because of the “unfair” editing he was given on the show.

I don’t think it does. I kind of get it if he was going on Blankety Blank but I’m A Celeb is different. Particularly for politicians. He won’t benefit from this, particularly because his matey common-man-of-the-pub-people persona will be shown up as he ends up arguing while the likes of Josie Gibson (I predict) are just friendly and nice to people. Look at the likes of Nadine Dorries in the jungle or George Galloway in the Big Brother house. All it did was give people ammunition to ridicule them with. Besides, the great con of the jungle is that it can be great for unknowns but it can be a trap for the big names. Farage is undoubtedly a massive name. I contend that if you detest Nigel Farage then going into the jungle is probably the thing you most want. I appreciate however that if this was Tommy Robinson or Hatie Kopkins we were talking about then that would be a step too far. I don’t believe Farage has been prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, but if he has then I take the above back.

Farage boycott? I think the more people watch it the better. He’ll do the trials but he won’t come across as very personable.

Fair dues. I figure the current Filbert’s been in the job for a long time because the fox is always left-footed. Seems strange they said in the advert that you get bank holidays off though if it’s to be Filbert.

It reads more like being Filbert’s manager to me.

Maybe it’ll turn out that the accusations of being petty and vindictive are true, but my first reaction to this was that Ashworth and his team are probably well aware of this person and have tried to engage him outside of this meeting, but he wouldn’t accept that and tried to force his agenda through regardless. Then he didn’t like it when he got blocked.

You’re right with the bolded part. It’s not like I’m not aware of those things you listed, although I’m sure we could spend a good evening debating the ins and outs of some of them. It’s just that the whole thing has never felt as important to me as it clearly does to others.

It’s become clear to me over the years that for some people the issue of Palestine is way higher in importance for them than it is for me. Maybe it’s an unedifying way of describing it, but Palestine has never been anything for me other than “another conflict on foreign shores”, not a pleasant situation by any means but no more important than any other. I have no history with Islam or Judaism, which plays into that, and I don’t really have any firm connection with Christianity either aside from it being the UK’s dominant, influential religion as I grew up. I look similarly for example at Yemen and go “it’s terrible what’s happening there” but it doesn’t affect my thinking or voting intention. The Ukraine situation weighs far heavier on me because it feels far closer and impactful. Even now, the Palestine situation is something that’s happening and I wish it would stop but it doesn’t feel any bigger to me than anything else terrible happening in the world, except for its potential propensity for wider conflict. Yet for some, Palestine is clearly as high or higher than (E.g.) the economy or the NHS. The delegates at Labour Party conferences pretty much always want to discuss it and vote on it, even when it isn’t a flashpoint like it is right now. It’s a real button issue for a lot of people, particularly on the left. Maybe I’ve never really understood it.

Genuinely though, I think just tell them you think they’re wrong and then leave them to it without any further detail. If they have any will to explore it further then they’ll come to you.

*Deleting my reply as it could flag to the mods and get me unintentionally banned.

Slip them a sleeping draft on election day?

I think the mistake Starmer’s made here is to try to force a unified vote, to the point where he’s getting resignations. Personally, I’d argue that he - and the government, the US and the EU - have the right approach in calling for the so-called humanitarian pauses right now, not as much for the given reason of Israel having a right to defend itself, but because I figure it’d have a better result in the long term. But I don’t see that it was worth splitting the party for.

Actually I’d argue that’s the positive about the appointment - that he’s more diplomat than firebrand, with a lot of inside knowledge and experience at tumultuous times. You’d imagine people would listen when he was in the room, whether they wanted to or not. The downsides are the accusations of dodgy dealings coupled with potential for exposure on the international stage and the fact someone who isn’t an elected MP is getting a major brief.

Yeah, there is a solid argument to say that it’s better for the right wing nutters to actually be in charge for the election so that they can take the walloping loss, forcing the party to pivot back toward the centre again.

Unless you mean Cameron, in which case yes, that’s not good.

Technically we vote for our representative, not a leader. (Although of course the leader is taken into account.) But the fact remains that if the option to remove a leader without a General Election was not on the table then we’d still have Boris in charge.

It can absolutely get worse for them. Imagine them not even being the main opposition in the next parliament. Sunak’s one of the best things about the Conservatives right now, IMO. He’s not great and there are things I’d hammer him for such as burying the environmental policies but at least he’s electable. The alternatives are the likes of Braverman, who is an absolute monster, and a load of others who would see the country burn for a millionaires’ tax break, people who genuinely seem to think that the country’s thickest ever PM Liz Truss was onto something. If the Conservative Party can’t be kept in check without someone utterly vile as Home Secretary then they should call a General Election. The last two times, a new leader was justified because the old one was either a walking scandal or a walking economic crash. They have neither such excuse with Sunak.

At least Andrea Jenkyns’ letter wasn’t written 6 weeks ago.

They didn’t rule the waves like we did.

There are definitely two core ways of looking at Woke. For some it’s about acknowledging and desiring social justice and showing people kindness through understanding of their experiences. For others it’s railing against an aggressive and puritanical shutting down of conversations that don’t fit into a narrow morality. The battle, as much as anything, seems to be over the word. Both sides have a point. The question is probably one of scale.

Supposedly, it’s neither of those things. What the cat is apparently doing is judging that you, a member of its family, are a crap hunter so therefore bringing you a half-dead prey so you can learn to finish it off. It then probably judges you as a complete dimwit when you then don’t kill it and eat it. The fact that you have food in the cupboards is probably considered most fortunate but unlikely to last.