pink_triangle

Gove saying he will abstain because he accepts the report, but disagrees with the punishment. Expect this to be the cowardly approach of most torys.

The slight issue with that is the SNP is no more radical than labour!

The questions were about the mainstream media, Boris, evil trans people and Prince Harry. I thought some of the Corbynites were strange, but this is a different level.

I felt a bit dirty but I watched some clips of Liz Truss GB news interview, she has got even more batshit crazy

There are still plenty of kids in nurseries which suggests to me many mums are still working. I have no issue with targeted care, but there are still a lot of people who can afford childcare and that money in my view is better targeted at those most in need. Or alternatively a tapered system where people may make some contribution.

That is effectively focusing on those who vote, rather than those who (in relative numbers) don’t. I am happy with those in need having free childcare, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect those who can afford to make scarfices and contribute.

To me there is little progressive about free childcare for anyone over 9 months. I think money can be better spent to help those most in need.

What happened to the boundary changes the Tory’s were going to bring in to favour themselves, I lost track if this happened or not.

I thought City were quite mediocre, but over the tournament were the best team.

I can take the fact that some people have different views on economics than me and vote conservative. However these people who can’t make intellectual arguments and just start talking about “the blob” are just pathetic.

He was also going to be kicked out by the electorate next year, jumping before he was pushed.

Johnson doesn’t want to be leader of the opposition. This is typical egomaniac Boris trying to make himself out to be the victim, instead of booted out by the electorate next year.

The average swing voter couldn’t care less about the selection contest for mayor in the north east. They do care about social care and that their family or themselves will get good quality care if needed. I know as a health professional good, consistent social care is a good investment as it keeps people out of hospital. The trouble is we value our carers so poorly, the best carers move to a different profession.

5 percent in parts of Liverpool and London maybe, nationally not a chance. The supporters of Jez are a lot noisier on twitter than their numbers suggest. As for the mayor it’s a bit of a non story , nobody had heard of him before and most will have forgotten him by the next election. He will probably benefit by getting more followers on Twitter and adulation of the momentum crew.

I think so as well. I suspect by the time there is a vacancy the Tory’s will have had 4 female leaders and I can’t see labour picking another man.

Would it be cynical to think Burnham has an eye on getting the Corbynite support in a future leadership contest?

I suspect the most useful parts of the enquiry will be the boring stuff that won’t make headlines, but will prepare us in the future. However the future will have to take into consideration what people will be willing to do. Even if the science says to not see dying relatives and not go to funerals people will probably ignore it. The science is important, but how you balance looking after the old lady in the care home, the child in school and the teenager who wants to be with their mates is always going to be political choices and ones I wouldn’t want to make. We will never know what different choices labour would have made, I don’t think you can assume what they say in opposition is how they would act in power. To me as a scientist what is really useful (and am not sure if covered by the enquiry) is how different countries acted and the impact that this had on outcomes.

Politically I think in his situation it’s best to just say wait until the enquiry has reported, some will be after the next election. If the enquiry comes back saying he ignored science, easy to mitigate talking about economic impact of lockdown, impact on mental health and education, which are factors beyond the science. There may be gotcha messages amongst the WhatsApp, but it won’t be what the Guardian are saying.

I think the public can be persuaded with the argument of finding the balance between restricting covid without hurting the economy and also the mental health of those locked down. It’s such a difficult balance to make when you try and combine the science and the politics.

I think you need to be mindful of where the article is coming from and the Guardian ultra cautious approach is probably every bit (possibly more) as out of touch with public opinion as the Spectator. My suspicion is anything from the enquiry that states we should have been more restrictive, the public (in general) will just ignore the science, think about (in general) how mild covid was when they caught it and not worth the sacrifice they made to personal freedom. I agree language could be an issue if it suggests any level of hypocrisy or looking down on the public.

The guardian may think eat out to help out will cause Sunak problems, I’m not convinced. I don’t think the public will really care if they didn’t seek scientific advice, or if covid cases rose. They have risen and fallen so many times since, I don’t think people will see this a big issue. The question is will the public be bothered about the waste of tax payers money. I suspect it won’t change many minds. Any thought that we should have been more restrictive won’t resonate with the public who already have covid fatigue. The only thing that will resonate is if evidence suggests we should have been less restrictive wasn’t followed.

In fairness didn’t the lyrics talk about make sure that she’s old enough!

I have no doubt that many (mainly but not exclusive) young girls are attracted to rich older men because of their money, power, celebrity. How do we distinguish between those and grooming?

I think there is an element of homophobia here. I honestly believe if it had been a girl people would be far less interested. I think there is still a bit of a culture where a man sleeping with a young (but legal) girl is considered something to admire, but a man sleeping with a young (but legal) boy is considered a bit sordid. I also think there is an element of people liking to knock down someone with a “wholesome image “. While at the same time there is some weird political divide where left wing people seem (in general) more sympathetic to PS and right wing more on the attack. To me it seems a bit of a pile on, but there may be evidence released in future which proves it’s justified. I don’t watch this morning or anything with him in, so makes little difference to my life. Interestingly when I was a teenager in the 90s it seemed kind of accepted that many blokes in bands slept with girls under 16, fans seemed to just accept (and often joke about) it. I have no knowledge/understanding of modern music, does this culture of acceptance no longer exist, or do we have different expectations of our rock stars than daytime tv presenters?

Parallel universe and Bojo gives a 15 year old some work experience and f**ks her when she was legal, do you believe his acolytes would care? They would probably be slapping his back.