At last a fully functioning opposition

Sorry, should have explained (again). The 'excess deaths' figure is that of the deaths in excess of the 'normal'. 'Normal' being the average of the deaths in the same week over a period of 5 years.

They looked at the usual number of deaths each week and then the number of deaths this year. There are approximately 1000 more each week.

I think you've missed a '0' out there, trisher. I've been looking at the ONS figures every Tuesday since they started posting them. I have even posted about them on Gnet, to the usual resounding indifference.

Since the w/e 3rd April the 'excess deaths' figures hve been, respectively, 6,082, 7,996, 11,854 and 11,539.(w/e 24th April) Which I make a total of over 37,000. That is for England and Wales only. Scotland & NI publish their own figures.

I await tomorrow's figures with interest.

Impartial What is your perception of clarity after the PM made his announcement yesterday evening? It was certainly clear that he was going to appear on our tvs at a specified time.

As for the content- decidedly unclear and that speech was pre-recorded so he could at least have got the day on which people could return to work correct.

But WW2 that poster is self-declared as Impartialandeducated don’t you know?

Query? If they are clearly not impartial, does that nullify the whole epithet?

That is interesting. Someone from the ONS on TV today criticised the figures given out by the government. They have analysed the figures and consider the ones given out are totally inaccurate. They looked at the usual number of deaths each week and then the number of deaths this year. There are approximately 1000 more each week. They think many of those could be covid related. He thought the government should be more open and honest about what is happening.

impartial ?? can you provide the necessary workings on your calculations please. I will find them very interesting

It would be so refreshing for all these opposition MPs to put forward their suggestions without hindsight. Clearly the only way they stand any chance of seeing power again is to blacken the efforts of the landslide government. The word they, alongside the press, bandy around is "clarity" What could be clearer than the government announcing a statement on the next stage to take place on Sunday 10th May. The opposition simply want to generate a hurried response which they may use later as a tool for criticism. the press on the other hand prefer to generate news rather than reporting it, publishing alleged leaks and "learned exclusively by the BBC" stories in order to flush out details prematurely. There was some delight last week in the Labour Party and the BBC when, according to the pair of them, the UK was the worst affected country in Europe. Sadly Mr Starmer does not have a grasp of mathematics, statistics or even common sense. My study of the pandemic figures, taking into account land mass and population arrives at a quotient putting Spain, Italy and France well ahead of the UK. But why would I expect any member of the Labour party to understand anything beyond bare basics. By the way if anyone is interested I have last week's lottery numbers.!!!!!!

Undoubtedly, many within the broader Labour movement feel that the factionalism within the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will make it unelectable to government into the foreseeable future. The core of that factionalism has been in recent times centred on the Labour Party Central Office and within Labour MPs in the House of Commons.

The PLP was born out of the trade union movement and within those trade unions, there are now many activists who feel that the PLP should be brought once again much closer to the trade unions and all other affiliate organisations that make up the Broader Labour Movement in Britain.

The first move in the above could well be to merge the at present out of control Labour Central Office into the TUC central office which in that reorganisation would greatly improve communication and policy control being that would then be placed into one body.

The above could also mean the General Secretaries office could also be integrated into the above as that office at present acts as a bridge between the broader Labour movement and the PLP. The Labour Leaders office could remain independent, and in that, able to just concentrate on parliamentary undertakings and discipline within Labour MPs.

The above are the proposals that a number of Unite Union Branches (including my own) have put forward for the basis of debate within Unites General Executive and the union's national delegate conference, should it take place in the present circumstances.

The foregoing it is felt would bring to the Labour Party far easier access to the trade union activists many of whom are highly experienced in the Labour movement by way of their work in support on members employed in companies throughout Britain. Many of those activists, it is felt, could make excellent MPs given a better opportunity.

I have made this post as an example of the thinking taking place in the Broader Labour movement in regard to the future of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

While those involved within the Labour Party are having their "discussions", potential Labour voters will be beginning to make up their minds about their vote in the next general election.

Bringing about the demise of any political party of long standing can create a political vacuum and that can be dangerous. What replaces the old party will not necessarily be better or better run or indeed attractive to the electorate.

If the picture is a bad a Grandad paints it euthanasia is probably the best outcome. Let the Unions put it out of its misery and invent a party that runs itself properly.

Devorgilla, in regard to your post @13:51 today, I believe there are mixed reports on how many employees located at Labour Central Office remain in employment with the Parliamentary Labour party (PLP).

I would not expect any statement from the Labour Party in regard to the matter as any declaration may well infringe the Data Protection Act. However, I would not be surprised if many have left that employment as if reports are correct virtually all those cited for misdeeds in the Leaked report are taking up litigation against the Labour Party for breach of the Data Protection Act and through that violation of Employers Duty of Care regulations.

As already reported in this thread even the Labour Parties own lawyers are predicting that the above may in terms of prosecution and claims amount to a cost of over eight million pounds which is a figure that would, without doubt, bring the Labour Party to bankruptcy.

The trade unions have always, throughout its history, funded the Labour Party by way of the political Levy paid by trade union members on a monthly basis. However, since 2015 unprecedented levels of funding have been forthcoming from those trade unions to the PLP as the unions have added to the political levy varying but large amounts from their general funds.

In the above, I believe that despite all the funding the Labour Party has received by way of increased membership subscriptions and trade union funding the PLP has been for over a decade now "not fit for purpose".

Therefore many in the broader Labour moment are stating that change has to come about as the Parliamentary Party is riven with factionalism which must be brought to an end. Accordingly, I feel that the trade unions will not be prepared to come forward with the huge amount of funding that will be required if the Labour Party is to be prevented from falling into a self-inflicted and what should have been a very easily and avoidable insolvency.

Change in how those trade unions fund their political ambitions is long overdue many feel, and in that, many various scenarios have been under discussion within the main trade unions since the last general election. That stated, almost all those scenarios do not include the Parliamentary Labour Party in its present form.

The events of the last weeks will obviously greatly increase the above discussions.

I'm not surprised that parents are nervous.
The focus must be on the safety of the children and their families, not the use of schools as a childminding service.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is quite right to highlight this.

And there is, of course, that covid related illness that is affecting children in America. We need to know more about that before children are sent back to school. For the sake of a few weeks surely it would be worth waiting till September? And, in the meantime put measures in place to make schools safer; more ventilation etc. And also make sure that every child in this country is having a good healthy diet. It will be interesting to see a break down of figures at some point as to how deprived areas are being affected by the virus. Although I could probably make an educated guess now .

Rebecca Long-Bailey (shadow education) urges caution in deciding the return to school. She directs the government to the five tests attached.

Polls suggest that parents are feeling very nervous over their child’s return to school. I think MN has found that a big majority of parents are concerned.

The 5 tests give a good guideline to adhere to when deciding the issue.

GD43, I see from a Guardian article close to the time of the leak of the report that several, if not all, of the named no longer work for Labour and haven't for some time. It would therefore not be in KS's power to suspend them. Whether they are still members is another matter but I don't have access to that data, nor should I. You can vote Labour even if not a member. Surely the people who commissioned and wrote the report for presentation would have made sure they had copies of any evidence. I know I would in such a situation.
I was a bit disturbed to read your comments that the Unions, or perhaps your particular Union, would not be prepared to help out. You seemed to give the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that KS would have to go cap in hand to the Unions for a bail out. Would he then be expected to have his hands tied and do exactly as the Unions demanded?
Like WW2 and others I am now going to wait out the investigation.

Labours shadow housing secretary Thangam Debonaire (there is a name that doesn’t roll off the tongue very easily) has raised the alarm over the amount of convictions occurring since lockdown because people cannot pay the rent.

Labour is asking that eviction ban be extended by 6 months I.e. from 3 to 6 months and that those in debt be given 2 years to pay back the arrears.

Shelter has expressed concern at the tsunami of evictions that will occur unless the government puts into place mitigation to prevent thousands of homeless.

Interesting article on Lisa Nandy’s (shadow Foreign Secretary) call for the world to work together to achieve the vaccine we so much desire.

No country can go it alone in times such as this and she welcomed the fact that the U.K. co- hosted a pledging conference with the EU. She called on the U.K. government to use its influence to encourage the USA to take part in the world cooperation of a vaccine.

She argued that unless we get a world wide response, we will see a country by country scrabble in competition with each other.

It leaves the U.K. in a particularly vulnerable position, as we don’t have the manufacturing capability here. We will be reliant on other countries like India who was not present at the meeting.

We have to try to get drug companies to pull patents. Unless we get ahead o& the game now we will be in exactly the same position we have been in since the start of the virus with lack of equipment, testing and PPE.

Whilst the opposition has been cautious in being overly critical of the government, it has stepped up criticism over the past few days.

Starmer has been critical of the lack of protection for the VE Day generation in care homes.

Whitewavemark2 in regard to your above post @08:33 today, you only leave it for me and others to conclude, I am sure, that you do not bring forward any credible reasons or argument why those employees cited for misconduct in the leaked antisemitism report should not be suspended from employment because there are no reasons why those persons should not be suspended from their employment.

From that, I can only conclude that you wish to see the inquiry not be able to carry out its investigations fully so as to protect those who may have committed gross misconduct against action being taken against them.

Many others who have had their reputations stained by the antisemitism allegations that have surrounded the whole Labour Movement for so long have been subject to employment and membership suspension while the allegations against them were investigated.

However, where it is alleged that persons at Labour Central Office prevented those allegations from being resolved you do not wish to see the same suspension process applied to those people.

The above situation now being played out may well bring about the break up of the whole Labour movement.

In that, the Parliamentary Labour Party WILL face bankruptcy whatever the Inquiry conclusions may be. From that situation, the Parliamentary Labour Party WILL have to approach the trade unions and other affiliate organizations to prevent that bankruptcy coming about.

Do you really believe Whitewavemark2 that those organizations will come forward with the huge funding that will be required when they are now witnessing such inequality and injustice occurring?

Yes grany you are absolutely right if course.

DH has just come back from walking the dog and said that he can see the Isle of Wight from the bit of the downs at the back of Steyning etc and that is the first time he has ever seen it.

Oh I so wish we could build on what we have achieved by accident and crises.

The major good thing that could come out of this disaster is that.

Little garden

The Climate Emergency should come top too. And how can everyone do their bit. I am growing wild flowers in my little as I hear a lot of wild flower meadows have gone, all helps with the eco system.

grandad are you copying and pasting one of your posts? As I seem to be reading the same thing over and over.

Please don’t think me rude but there really is nothing more to say on the subject as far as I’m concerned.

I am content to let things take their course.

It is low down on my list of concerns at the moment.

Covid

Economy/unemployment

Brexit negotiations

Come far higher and they are my focus.

Sorry to repeat myself??

Whitewavemark2, in regard to your above post @07:26 today, you still have not stated clearly why you feel the employees at Labour Central Office who in the leaked report are alleged to have carried out misconduct should not be suspended from their employment?

An employee of any organisation who finds there has been an allegation of misdeed being placed against them would expect the above to be carried out.

suspending an employee does not signal any notion of guilt in the matter, but allows the employee to make a written statement giving their view and defence of the accusations which then become part of the following investigation.

In suspending an employee while that investigation is carried out protects all persons involved in the matter, especially when personal conflict may be involved, and safeguards any data that may be prevalent in the case.

The above procedure was placed into legislation by the Blair government administration in 1998 and was further strengthened when being encompassed into the Equality Act in 2010. The procedure has been widely used and accepted throughout British industry and commerce for more than twenty years and is widely advised on for use by such bodies as citizens advice organisations.

The above very often allow employees to return to their employment duties fully exonerated from any allegations and therefore rumour that may have persisted should such a procedure not have been carried out.

Therefore whitewavemark2 could you please explain why you believe that the employees at Labour Central Office cited for misconduct in the leaked report should not be subject to the above procedure and protection that a Labour government granted to them.

All other employed persons in Britain are subject to the above procedure, so, what is so different about the employees at Central Office?

lemon correct Sir Starmer was head of the DPP.

Cases are referred and the DPP makes the decision as to whether there is a case to answer, and if there is sufficient evidence in order to not waste the courts time etc.

Sussex and Surrey police did not fulfil the criteria, and the case was rejected. Starmer as head of the DPP would not have handled the case initially. It may have been referred to him with recommendation by his staff because of the high profile of the protagonist. But if the evidence in case being presented was insufficient courts time and tax payers money must not be wasted.