[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Hugo Rune]

Tory meltdown incoming...

Robert Peston
@Peston
I understand Sue Gray has found the email from a senior official to PM’s principle private secretary Martin Reynolds warning him the 20 May party should not go ahead, as per Cummings’s revelation

You would imagine, as in many movies where during a gun fight, the hero or villain grabs someone and uses them as a human shield to absorb all the bullets; Boris the Liar’s chubby hands will be readying themselves to forcibly grab Reynolds and position him in front of the PM in order to take ALL the ‘parties’ flack. Meanwhile, the ‘blackmail’ of rebel Tories continues unabated.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Robert Peston
@Peston
I understand Sue Gray has found the email from a senior official to PM’s principle private secretary Martin Reynolds warning him the 20 May party should not go ahead, as per Cummings’s revelation

Reynolds currently being measured for bus tyre marks as we speak.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

You would imagine, as in many movies where during a gun fight, the hero or villain grabs someone and uses them as a human shield to absorb all the bullets; Boris the Liar’s chubby hands will be readying themselves to forcibly grab Reynolds and position him in front of the PM in order to take ALL the ‘parties’ flack. Meanwhile, the ‘blackmail’ of rebel Tories continues unabated.

Yep, it doesn't feel like something that the general public will just shrug off once it's all played out.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Some asshat on Daily Politics saying he doesn't think anything whips do can be seen as blackmail.

 

[Jim in the West]

Agree, the "within 28 days of a positive test" is a rubbish measure. It includes a lot of deaths it shouldn't, but also excludes some it should include. Most of it from early in the pandemic, when there wasn't enough testing and a lot of deaths occurred without any tests done (and thus didn't qualify).

The better measure is to look at the death certificate count. And the government do report it, although absent the breakdown between vaxxed and un-vaxxed that you want (headline figure at top of page, plus third graph down the page). It's the press who are failing to report it anywhere near well enough.

28 day vs death cert counts currently:

- 28 day count as of yesterday: 152,872
- Death cert count as of 31st Dec: 174,233

Now, in a lot of cases on the death cert Covid isn't the primary cause of death. But it's still a far more accurate count (at least covid was listed as a factor) than the bollocks "28 day" measure the government prefers to be reported. The only advantage the 28 day measure has is that it can be tallied up easily on a daily basis, unlike the death cert number which lags. Or if you're the government, the fact that it undersells the total impact by over 20k.

The other measure is "Excess Deaths" - which looks at the number of deaths over and above the 5 year average. This is now approaching 150k since the start of the pandemic (compared to the 5 year annual avge up to end-2019). This is possibly the most useful figure as it enables international comparisons to be made without having to unravel countries' different reporting criteria.

Overall, I think we can conclude that the UK has suffered somewhere around 150k deaths as a result of Covid since the pandemic started (and maybe slightly more).

 

[Igzilla]

Checkmate for Johnson?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60071311

 

[Audax]

The other measure is "Excess Deaths" - which looks at the number of deaths over and above the 5 year average. This is now approaching 150k since the start of the pandemic (compared to the 5 year annual avge up to end-2019). This is possibly the most useful figure as it enables international comparisons to be made without having to unravel countries' different reporting criteria.

Overall, I think we can conclude that the UK has suffered somewhere around 150k deaths as a result of Covid since the pandemic started (and maybe slightly more).

Yes, that's a great measure - because it also does a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of also looking at the collateral damage: how many folks have died, without ever having Covid, who might have survived without the pandemic? How many missed cancer diagnoses, how many preventable heart attacks because people were too scared / worried about being a burden to front up for checks after early warning signs?

But it also swings the other way as well - the anti-Covid measures we've had in place are also generally good at suppressing other diseases (in particular Flu), and thus reduce the number of excess deaths.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Checkmate for Johnson?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60071311

And if self styled 'Brexit Hardman' Steve Baker is saying that we ALL need to take notice.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Some asshat on Daily Politics saying he doesn't think anything whips do can be seen as blackmail.

Withholding funds from deprived areas?

[tweet]1484137797862764546[/tweet]


[tweet]1484149149700341770[/tweet]

 

[HH Brighton]

My ****ing god, its incredible that people even speak about the current Tories as a serious subject, the whole thing is so rediculous. Imagine if we had been told in the first lockdown that this would happen? Anything that Trump done has been multiplied 100 times. Lets not normalise this bunch of self self satisfied morons that have polluted politics in this country.

 

[Gwylan]

Checkmate for Johnson?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60071311

That was said last week. There's been plenty to finish him off but he's still there - it's like trying to get rid of Rasputin

 

[rippleman]

Might these latest revelations bring about changes to the system of whipping MPs?

It certainly undermines the platform that a candidate stands for election on if, despite the MP having very strong views on a subject - let's say free school means - if the whips are able to threaten / bully them into voting for what the PM wants, rather than what their constituents want or in accordance with their own personal views and beliefs.

Of course it won't happen because party leaders want to control their MPs. But is that the kind of palriamentary democracy that we really want?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The problems with the death figures are:-

a) As has always been the case the "within 28 days of a positive test" figure is hugely misleading and the only reason for reporting in this way was to spread fear amongst the populace. I saw one scientific study which established that over a third of the reported deaths had absolutely nothing to do with covid at all

Why not report deaths as a direct result of covid (ie dispense with the "within 28 days of a positive test")

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Agree, the "within 28 days of a positive test" is a rubbish measure. It includes a lot of deaths it shouldn't, but also excludes some it should include. Most of it from early in the pandemic, when there wasn't enough testing and a lot of deaths occurred without any tests done (and thus didn't qualify).

The better measure is to look at the death certificate count.

28 day vs death cert counts currently:

- 28 day count as of yesterday: 152,872
- Death cert count as of 31st Dec: 174,233

Now, in a lot of cases on the death cert Covid isn't the primary cause of death. But it's still a far more accurate count (at least covid was listed as a factor) than the bollocks "28 day" measure the government prefers to be reported. The only advantage the 28 day measure has is that it can be tallied up easily on a daily basis, unlike the death cert number which lags. Or if you're the government, the fact that it undersells the total impact by over 20k.

Yep. In fact the 28-day count performs two services for the government - (1) it underestimates the true count, as you point out; and (2) because its bad science, it makes a lot of people think that the true count is even lower than this.

 

[Machiavelli]

That was said last week. There's been plenty to finish him off but he's still there - it's like trying to get rid of Rasputin

Not entirely convinced about this. He's only been their leader and PM for 2.5 years. Let's wait and see what happens over the next few weeks (and I do appreciate who I'm sounding like in typing that).

 

[Peteinblack]

Might these latest revelations bring about changes to the system of whipping MPs?

It certainly undermines the platform that a candidate stands for election on if, despite the MP having very strong views on a subject - let's say free school means - if the whips are able to threaten / bully them into voting for what the PM wants, rather than what their constituents want or in accordance with their own personal views and beliefs.

Of course it won't happen because party leaders want to control their MPs. But is that the kind of palriamentary democracy that we really want?

Apparently, back in 1993 under John Major, quite a few Tory MPs were 'persuaded' to vote for the Maastricht Treaty (which formally created the European Union) because the whips blackmailed them, by threatening to publicly leak details of their alcoholism, debts, gambling addiction, affairs with their interns or secretary, homosexuality, etc. The MPs in question were naturally terrified that such revelations might well destroy their marriages or political careers.

Only if they showed loyalty to Major by voting for the Maastricht Treaty would their alleged sordid secrets remain undisclosed in the Whips' little black book of MPs' misdemeanours.

 

[pb21]

Apparently, back in 1993 under John Major, quite a few Tory MPs were 'persuaded' to vote for the Maastricht Treaty (which formally created the European Union) because the whips blackmailed them, by threatening to reveal details of their alcoholism/debts/. gambling addiction/adultery/homosexuality. Only if they showed loyalty to Major by voting for the Maastricht Treaty would their alleged sordid secrets remain undisclosed in the Whips' little black book!

I always assumed this type of stuff was 'par for the course'

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Withholding funds from deprived areas?

[tweet]1484137797862764546[/tweet]


[tweet]1484149149700341770[/tweet]

Lord Vaizey, I think it was. He said that given that whips on both sides have been threatening to fire people, smear them and other such things that he didn't think anything they did could construed as blackmail. Even the commentators seemed to think that withholding funds was a relatively common threat.

Given that the MP that spoke out is openly gay, it does make you wonder what smears they were planning for him. I am sure it does happen all the time on all sides but makes you wonder if this has been a step too far or is just someone passing on common knowledge as new information. The system of whips is what turned me off of politics years ago, What is the point of voting for someone based on their beliefs if they are going to be threatened if they try and stick to them?

 

[Peteinblack]

My ****ing god, its incredible that people even speak about the current Tories as a serious subject, the whole thing is so rediculous. Imagine if we had been told in the first lockdown that this would happen? Anything that Trump done has been multiplied 100 times. Lets not normalise this bunch of self self satisfied morons that have polluted politics in this country.

Sadly, millions of people are still defending him, often by claiming that "All politicians are corrupt or incompetent/Labour or the Lib Dems would be just as bad, if not worse."

I've said all along that many of Johnson's supporters are our equivalent of Trump fanatics in the US - he could slaughter someone's family in front of them and then burn their house down, and they'd still vote for him, marvelling at what 'a character' he is.

My sister-in-law was visiting yesterday - she's a barrister (so pretty intelligent and mentally sharp), and even she was defending him, saying that he's the victim of a witch-hunt, and is being bullied, even by people from his own party - I suggested she stopped reading the Daily Mail (which she does)

 

[A1X]

Checkmate for Johnson?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60071311

The big problem Johnson has is it that for some time many in his party have hated him and his leadership, but stuck with it because they thought he was a positive at the ballot box. It now seems apparent that he's no longer going to be so, and it's hugely unlikely he ever will be again. So whereas a leader who commanded more support generally throughout his (or her) party might be able to ride this out, or at least pick a point of their own departure, I don't think Johnson has the goodwill among his own to manage that. When the end comes, it will be swift and it will be brutal. It's more a question of "when" now.

 

[Peteinblack]

I always assumed this type of stuff was 'par for the course'

True, but when it is actually put in to words by an MP who was there at the time.......