Tbh I don't see why vaccines can't be given at night too. Would make sense.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Tbh I don't see why vaccines can't be given at night too. Would make sense.
But health professionals already work 24/7. They have to. And the best way to improve their work life balance is to get on top of this fecking thing asap.
Talking to doctors, and other health professionals within the family there's just not enough vaccines available at the moment. The major obstacle is transporting and keeping them at the correct temperatures. There's just not enough refrigeration available to keep the vaccines at the correct temperatures of minus 70 degrees. Just to make comparisons, domestic refrigeration is fine for keeping temperatures at around 5 degrees with freezers at minus 20.
Oxford vaccines should be much easier once they start being available in bulk.
Oxford vaccines should be much easier once they start being available in bulk.
wasn't one of those policies to do with school meals too? would be fun if it happened exactly that way
Isn't there a johnson and Johnson vaccine that could be available soon as well that's a 1 dose vaccine at similar temp to the Oxford one?... if so and it can be produced in significant quantities that could be quite a big step forward as well
I know that but this is such a meaningless attack, it does nothing and makes him look a pillock in my opinion. I'll vote for Labour, but not because I really want to.
And then when you consider all the Priti Patel stuff, who seems to think The Thick of It is how politicians are supposed to act... really apt.No, ignore all that, just work "round the clock". Keir has spoken.
I dislike Keir more than the camelian Gove, and Patel. I've been a Labour voter all my life except for the election after Blair took us to Iraq. The only reason I will vote Labour next time is my local MP who is very good and know her on a personal basis.
Yes, the few times I have spoken to Cat (one of them in my underwear on my doorstep, but she wouldn't have known that!) she has always come across really well. She clearly cares about the area and the people that live in it. She does a lot for our local community and in some ways it's a shame she has got herself into a somewhat senior position in the Labour Party, as I think it clips her wings a bit in terms of how vocal she can be about certain things. The last two elections I have internalised my vote as a vote for Cat more so than a vote for Labour.
Yep, agreed. I would vote for Labour as they will likely be the lesser of two evils. But I despair at the slim options in our outdated FPTP political system. With the two main parties so closely aligned, it feels like the illusion of choice.
Dunno, think it’s a valid question actually given it’s a national fecking crisis. What’s in the way of 24/7 vaccinations and what could be done to remove the blocks? Eg How could you increase capacity? What’s an acceptable level of risk? Etc.
It is a simplistic and sloganistic question. Maybe he is modelling his media output on "get brexit done".
24/7 vaccinations are not possible right now because there is not enough vaccine stock. That is the challenge that needs overcoming first. Maybe he should contribute an opinion on how to overcome that, the major barrier to 24/7 vaccinations. Then there is the question of capacity.
He does say “by the end of the month” when hopefully the supply is there.
Clearly the supply isn’t there yet, but when it is, it needs to get injected into people as fast as its being made.
Not really sure how anyone rational can disagree with that as a position tbh. Starmer isn’t perfect by any means but some of the negativity on here is truly bizarre. I mean taking exception to the phrase “working around the clock”...really?
Last edited:
He's right to question why PHE won't deliver vaccines on a Sunday, even during a pandemic though.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/05/public-health-england-wont-work-sundays-deliver-covid-19-vaccines/amp/
Good lord, his Marr performance.
Give me strength.
Keir Starmer drops Labour pledge to fight for return to EU free movement
Opposition leader says it won’t be ‘realistic’ to renegotiate free movement
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-free-movement-eu-pledge-b1785041.html?
He has changed his tune on yet another issue. What does he actually stand for? Genuinely, can anyone tell me his core values?
Is he hoping his 3 word slogan can simply be "Better than Boris"?
Opposition leader says it won’t be ‘realistic’ to renegotiate free movement
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-free-movement-eu-pledge-b1785041.html?
He has changed his tune on yet another issue. What does he actually stand for? Genuinely, can anyone tell me his core values?
Is he hoping his 3 word slogan can simply be "Better than Boris"?
Great hair.
True. Impressive .
Not as entertaining as Boris's hair. He is a Charlatan.
Obviously it wasn't going to be realistic to fundamentally renegotiate the treaty if Labour got elected, as every step of the tortuous process to get this deal clearly screams. The criticism should be for promising something he had no intention of following through on in the first place. Because claiming they didn't know what would be in the treaty at the time is completely disingenuous, as free movement was never on the table with this government.
He finally actually took a firm stance on something vaguely sensible and worthy today tbf to him by objecting to the 5% increase in council tax the Tories are imposing.
Why he can't take the same firm stance on for example ensuring employees are paid full sick pay during a pandemic, or increasing Universal Credit a little bit at a time where so many people are out of work through no fault of their own, I really don't understand. Or for that matter, any other fairly cheap and sensible proposal that would actually go down well with the left of his party and make it look like he has some values and opinions.
Why he can't take the same firm stance on for example ensuring employees are paid full sick pay during a pandemic, or increasing Universal Credit a little bit at a time where so many people are out of work through no fault of their own, I really don't understand. Or for that matter, any other fairly cheap and sensible proposal that would actually go down well with the left of his party and make it look like he has some values and opinions.
Not true. His hair is much tidier, it is styled with Forensic detail.
Or supporting teachers and education unions who flagged the current schools covid crisis back in Summer, but were ignored. "No ifs, no buts, no equivocation". That would be a good place to revisit, to rebuild some faith.
Keir has a real lust for for the spycops bill, it seems. It is a brutal bill as undercover police going too far has already been established as a concern. The woman who took the police to court springa to mind, an undercover police officer had a relationship to her and made her pregnant. All while "working".
Lib Dems are likely against it but Labour peers are going to be whipped to abstain again.
Labour facing another split over police immunity in 'spy cops' bill
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-split-over-police-immunity-in-spy-cops-bill
Lib Dems are likely against it but Labour peers are going to be whipped to abstain again.
Labour facing another split over police immunity in 'spy cops' bill
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-split-over-police-immunity-in-spy-cops-bill
This is factually untrue. The Tory government has given permission for Councils to increase local taxes by up to 5%. It is not imposing a 5% rise on anyone. Would have made more sense for Kier to have argued that central government should fund in full a 5% increase. Would have meant borrowing a shedload more money but what the heck we have borrowed significant shedloads already. What’s a few more.
Yep. It's the bread and butter of his support and it wouldn't cost much to throw them a bone. I don't think there's too many people who would be happy slagging off teachers right now given all the pressures they're under so supporting them wouldn't even look soft to the knobbers he's trying to attract.
Quibbling over any of these funding increases is mental given we've happily printed £1.39bn in QE to prop up the stock market. But that's not really the point, it's just time to see him talking about something he "believes in" that's isn't entirely led by whatever the government want to talk about.
No it’s not. What if my Labour controlled Council take up the option? Do I still blame Central Government for “imposing” a 5% increase. Nuances should be important. Sadly in today’s interconnected world as Trump has demonstrated.fact is unimportant. Narrative is king.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. I'm not talking about increasing taxes, I'm talking about government refusing to pay for things that are useful given they've committed to just printing trillions to prop up hedge fund managers' portfolios but then claim to not be able to afford to increase their funding to councils or compensate businesses they force to close.
This is a bit silly and cheapens your wider arguments.
Well what do you think Quantitative Easing is for? BoE analysis suggests that last time they did it post financial crisis roughly 40% of it ended up in the hands of the 5% of wealthiest households. If we assumed the same ratio this time it would be equivalent to a £550bn handout to the wealthiest 5% in the space of roughly a year.
If instead you just gave everyone in the country £9k you'd probably achieve much better results for the wider economy at a much lower cost. And you might not even need to provide free school meals while you were at it because we wouldn't have so many starving children.
QE after the financial crisis was different, cos banks were actually collapsing and the financial system did need bailing out big time to prevent a systemic meltdown. Now the picture is less clear, but undoubtedly more companies would've gone bust without the stimulus announced last year, eg furlough etc...One obvious issue is that billionaires have been the biggest beneficiary, I agree completely, but I don't have the economic knowledge to figure out assess alternatives to QE. Seems like central banks don't either.
Maybe you could give everyone a cheque for a few grand, but that would end up making Jeff Bezos even richer when loads of people buy yet more stuff off Amazon.
At least he would have earned it by doing...something. Currently they seem to print money to buy bonds from a mixture of private banks, the treasury, the arcane wizarding department and every man and his dog, and somehow a load of private banks get rich from public money being printed along the way. It would be a scandal if anyone actually understood what the feck they were doing. Print money -> spend it on stuff people need? No, print money -> give it to banks to lend to people who need stuff.
I don't pretend to understand it all but the BoE's own analysis corroborates how unfairly QE ends up being distributed, I'm not quoting anything out there, it's on their website if you know where to look.
And in terms of the financial crisis, the banking system needed money but there's no obvious evidence that QE is a good way of delivering it. If it was anyone other than the banks you'd either guarantee some of their bad debts to help them borrow the money they need, or you'd take a stake in the business and take on their debts, or you'd let them go bust. You wouldn't expect a government to hand out billions to a private company through some obscure means with nothing coming back in return other than the prospect of some tax revenue in 10 years' time.
But it's even worse this time as there's about twice as much QE money and supposedly the banks are fine so why's it being routed through them?
The BoE is primarily buying the bonds that the government is issuing to pay for its corona response, among other things. Banks have actually been losing money from interest rates being so low, rather than having their pockets lined.
There's another thing I'll never understand, what benefit can there be to the state Bank buying government bonds? The government owes the BoE a load of money that they can't pay back, where's the sense in that? Why not just issue it, spend it, forget about it?
And I'll bet anything there's loads of money being issued to private institutions (even 10% of £1.39tn is a metric feckton of anybody's money).
If it looks like a tory, sounds like a tory, and votes like a tory, then it probably is a.....
Last edited:
Rashford making Starmer look like a useless flannel.