The next Labour leader

Who will be the next Labour leader?

  • Emily Thornberry

  • Jess Philips

  • Lisa Nandy

  • Kier Starmer

  • Rebecca Long Bailey

  • Someone Else


Results are only viewable after voting.
Er no. What you mean is to isolate the elderly in care homes, they’re paying for whose operators fell flat on their faces, by being unprepared for their responsibilities.

Agree. The scale of this scandal is enormous, and there's plenty of blame to go around.

“The Vulnerable.” what does that actually mean. We’re all vulnerable so who gets less priority.
we're not all vulnerable, or not to any significant extent. Certain age groups and medical conditions are going to suffer more; the mortality amongst the general population is very low.

We all knew at the start that MENA people were more susceptible didn’t we. That’s why we ignored over crowded conditions. What we’re hearing little of is Council or Authority planning for these issues. That’s what they get their money for, that’s why you pay Council tax. Who’se falling down there?
The inevitable inquiry will tease this stuff out. We have already heard about poor planning and underfunding at both LA and Westminster level.

At the moment the valiant opposition appears to be more TUC driven to make Government planning more difficult, and, suddenly they care so much. Drivel. Half arsed you call it. And I reiterate it’s not anywhere near the Spanish flu epidemic.
Not sure what you mean here, except about Spanish Flu with which i agree entirely.

The lockdown and associated economic cataclysm are the biggest over reaction since Diana was murdered by George Michael.
 
I said the vulnerable should have been isolated. It's clearly there in my post.
You wrote -

' What we have is a half arsed mishmash of confused crap, badly done, and destroying the economy. '

Talking about the procedures put it place for lockdown .

So again , how would you have managed lockdown better [ with benefit of hindsight ] AND managed to keep the economy going ?

How exactly would Labour have managed to do that then ?

Just wondering seen as you make great broad sweeping statements .
 

philc

LE
He was only yesterday addressing a mass gathering of his supporters.
Well colour me blue, Corbyn banging on about Desmond Tutu, I wonder what Jez sees in Tutu, could it be his hint of antisemitism?

Desmond has a bit of a thing for Jews, which goes beyond criticism of Israeli.

Tutu has demonized the “Jewish lobby” as too “powerful” and “scary," resorting to a vile myth rooted in anti-Jewish stereotype, whereby the Jews control Washington. According to Tutu’s horrific and false accusation against the Jewish people, Israel is a sadistically colonialist entity, a blind persecutor of children, and a mad builder of apartheid walls.

Tutu proclaimed, many years before Iran’s Ahmadinejad, that the West had muted criticism of Israel because of guilt over the Holocaust. He has accused Israel of acting in an “un-Christian” way. He has complained of “the Jewish monopoly of the Holocaust” and has demanded that its victims must “forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust,” while refusing to forgive the “Jewish people” for “persecuting others.”

Tutu has asserted that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” He has compared Israel to Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, saying that they too were once “very powerful” but they “bit the dust,” as will “unjust” Israel. Tutu has claimed that the Christian God sides with the Palestinians, whom he compares to the Israelites under slavery in Egypt.

Tutu's war on Israel, Jews
 
You wrote -

' What we have is a half arsed mishmash of confused crap, badly done, and destroying the economy. '

Talking about the procedures put it place for lockdown .

So again , how would you have managed lockdown better [ with benefit of hindsight ] AND managed to keep the economy going ?

How exactly would Labour have managed to do that then ?

Just wondering seen as you make great broad sweeping statements .
1. Vulnerable properly protected... long term.
2. Honest conversation about health effects of economic catastrophe
3. Decision to either accept the long term consequences or accept the 40-50k deaths 2020/21. As it is we have both.


I suspect that once it became clear the economy is buggered, Boris, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc. got on their knees to whatever leathery-winged God they worship and gave thanks that the Brexit disaster will get hidden.
 
You wrote -

' What we have is a half arsed mishmash of confused crap, badly done, and destroying the economy. '

Talking about the procedures put it place for lockdown .

So again , how would you have managed lockdown better [ with benefit of hindsight ] AND managed to keep the economy going ?

How exactly would Labour have managed to do that then ?

Just wondering seen as you make great broad sweeping statements .
That is because he is a dick?
Probly.
 
1. Vulnerable properly protected... long term.
2. Honest conversation about health effects of economic catastrophe
3. Decision to either accept the long term consequences or accept the 40-50k deaths 2020/21. As it is we have both.


I suspect that once it became clear the economy is buggered, Boris, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc. got on their knees to whatever leathery-winged God they worship and gave thanks that the Brexit disaster will get hidden.
Still not answering the question about how you would manage to juggle both the lockdown and keeping the economy going , its quite simple.

And if the current government , which by the way im not a fan of did one or the other then you would just scream about it and say the left would have done the opposite . No lockdown to save the economy ? You would have a fit and accuse them of being murderers . Total lockdown to save lives ? Your taking peoples jobs on purpose ... general uproar etc.

You really should stand for a local council at least , you will go far .
 
Still not answering the question about how you would manage to juggle both the lockdown and keeping the economy going , its quite simple.

And if the current government , which by the way im not a fan of did one or the other then you would just scream about it and say the left would have done the opposite . No lockdown to save the economy ? You would have a fit and accuse them of being murderers . Total lockdown to save lives ? Your taking peoples jobs on purpose ... general uproar etc.

You really should stand for a local council at least , you will go far .
I don't think we should have had a lockdown at all.

Vulne people, yes. Isolate.

Or somet really radical like designate some town/island/concentration campButlins a protected zone*

Rest of us crack on, get Covid or not (like with flu every winter) and keep the vulnerable behind protection measures, properly looked after and financially supported, until vaccine or cure is available. No coercion; if a vulnerable person chooses to take their chances so be it, but offer them a more than tolerable, genuinely decent alternative.

That would have cost a fortune but far, far less than what we actually did, and without tanking the economy (except for parts affected by non UK actions eg lack of foreign tourists coming).

As it is we have one of the highest death rates AND a destroyed economy.

The Government has failed on a scale it's hard to describe.

*like, every holiday park and lots of temporary ones
 
I don't think we should have had a lockdown at all.

Vulne people, yes. Isolate.

Or somet really radical like designate some town/island/concentration campButlins a protected zone*

Rest of us crack on, get Covid or not (like with flu every winter) and keep the vulnerable behind protection measures, properly looked after and financially supported,
Can you explain why the government put in place things like the Nightingale hospitals and effectively closed all hospitals? Can you explain the huge media furore about making 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 thousand ventilators? I can't recall them doing that for the yearly flu pandemic, its almost as if CV19 is different and is more easily spread, with a much greater mortality rate than the flu.
 
Can you explain why the government put in place things like the Nightingale hospitals and effectively closed all hospitals? Can you explain the huge media furore about making 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 thousand ventilators? I can't recall them doing that for the yearly flu pandemic, its almost as if CV19 is different and is more easily spread, with a much greater mortality rate than the flu.
It's beginning to look like the predictions were wrong. It's almost as if Covid19 is worse than 'flu, but by a factor of, maybe, 1.8 to 3.

I've not had an answer yet to these questions:

In a typical 15 year period 'flu deaths range from 500 - 30,000, averaging around 8000 and we take no prevention measures other than moderately effective vaccinations for vulnerable groups.

Covid19 has been implicated in appx. 45k deaths. Probably going to be appx. 55k or so.

At what point between 30k ('flu, no action , not even page 2 of the papers) and 55k (end of world, lockdowns) do we in future take this action again?

31k? 30,001? 49k?

What is different about this outbreak that justifies blighting the lives of the whole population?
 
It's beginning to look like the predictions were wrong. It's almost as if Covid19 is worse than 'flu, but by a factor of, maybe, 1.8 to 3.

What is different about this outbreak that justifies blighting the lives of the whole population?
You answered your own question. No one knew it wasn't as virulent as predicted. Therefore precautions were taken.
I shudder to think what you'd be writing if the government did nothing 'cause its not much worse than flu'.
 
It's not just the death rate with Covid, but the long term damage to people's lungs and other organs, it is serious

Just because not everyone knows someone effected, they think I'm alright Jack (or Gill or whatever one self identifies as)
 

Bob65

War Hero
Can you explain why the government put in place things like the Nightingale hospitals and effectively closed all hospitals? Can you explain the huge media furore about making 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 thousand ventilators? I can't recall them doing that for the yearly flu pandemic, its almost as if CV19 is different and is more easily spread, with a much greater mortality rate than the flu.
The published SAGE meeting minutes show that the government did exactly what the scientists told them to do, exactly when they told them to do it. The same scientists also predicted 50,000 would die from BSE (actual deaths 177), 200m worldwide from bird flu (282), 60,000 from swine flu (457) and so on.

As for the ventilators that was a media frenzy, the ventilators were not only not needed but also shown to be harmful.

CV19 should have been treated like a very severe flu, instead it was treated like the bubonic plague. That was a massive miscalculation, but not the government's. Theirs was to listen to people with fancy credentials but a very bad track record of getting it right.

And as for closing the hospitals, we saved the NHS, or the NHS saved itself, by abandoning both the healthcare needs of everyone else (such as cancer patients with treatments postponed) and old people shuffled off into nursing homes carrying Covid with them. Not exactly its finest hour.
 
You answered your own question. No one knew it wasn't as virulent as predicted. Therefore precautions were taken.
I shudder to think what you'd be writing if the government did nothing 'cause its not much worse than flu'.
I'll be interested to see what comes out over coming years regarding who knew what when about virulence.

I'm also curious about the level of life expectancy reduction in the next 2 - 3 decades because of economic problems. When a town, e.g. Middlesbrough, suffers an economic disaster, lives are shortened.

Covid hasn't added any deaths. We only get one death each. Covid has shortened lives; mostly of older people.

I'll use illustrative numbers to make the point.

If we have an average life expectancy of say 80, and 50k people average age 72 die, we have lost 50k x 8 = 400k lifeyears.

If, over the nation, life expectancy drops for economic reasons by even one year, that's 70m x 1 = 70m lost life years.

Even if the doomiest of doom mongers had been right, which is unlikely, and ignoring covid had taken 250,000 people with an average age of, say, 68 that would be, err... ... hang on.... errr 3m lost life years.

What we have done to the economy will be worse than if we had let Covid rip.

We have made a terrible mistake, and it's very much the Government's fault for having neither leadersh nor clarity.
 
We have made a terrible mistake, and it's very much the Government's fault for having neither leadersh nor clarity.
It doesn't strike you as curious that most other countries made similar precautions to the UK? Personally I thought that the government were right on it like a car bonnet.
 

Slime

LE
I don't think we should have had a lockdown at all.

Vulne people, yes. Isolate.

Or somet really radical like designate some town/island/concentration campButlins a protected zone*

Rest of us crack on, get Covid or not (like with flu every winter) and keep the vulnerable behind protection measures, properly looked after and financially supported, until vaccine or cure is available. No coercion; if a vulnerable person chooses to take their chances so be it, but offer them a more than tolerable, genuinely decent alternative.

That would have cost a fortune but far, far less than what we actually did, and without tanking the economy (except for parts affected by non UK actions eg lack of foreign tourists coming).

As it is we have one of the highest death rates AND a destroyed economy.

The Government has failed on a scale it's hard to describe.

*like, every holiday park and lots of temporary ones
If you were typing that as a comedy post you did well.

If however you were trying to be serious it was a crock of shite.
Why on earth do people still try to compare something like seasonal flu that has been well studied for 100 years (well longer, but that’s an easy number) and has a yearly vaccine programme among known groups with Covid 19?

Bearing in mind that NO ONE in any country on the planet earth knew who the vulnerable groups would be, how would YOUR idea of who would be vulnerable (without hindsight) have worked?

And, as there is no vaccine, no cure, and the virus was unknown, what would your protection measures (without hindsight) have been?

If you feel like it, you can expand on your idea of placing vulnerable people (who you had no idea who they were) in concentrated groups in locations not designed for long term stays, and with no useful medical care or medical staff.
 
If you were typing that as a comedy post you did well.

If however you were trying to be serious it was a crock of shite.
Why on earth do people still try to compare something like seasonal flu that has been well studied for 100 years (well longer, but that’s an easy number) and has a yearly vaccine programme among known groups with Covid 19?

Bearing in mind that NO ONE in any country on the planet earth knew who the vulnerable groups would be, how would YOUR idea of who would be vulnerable (without hindsight) have worked?

And, as there is no vaccine, no cure, and the virus was unknown, what would your protection measures (without hindsight) have been?

If you feel like it, you can expand on your idea of placing vulnerable people (who you had no idea who they were) in concentrated groups in locations not designed for long term stays, and with no useful medical care or medical staff.

Think back to late last year. What was known from Chinese data - bearing in mind China was 2 to 4 months ahead.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top