Cabinet Reshuffle

Casdon thanks for the info, having checked Sarah Jarvis out I couldn't understand why she might be against the Covid vaccine, it just didn't fit with what she has been involved in,

Primrose53

I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Radio 2 today talking about people damaged from covid jabs. When covid started, She initially told listeners and viewers that she did not approve of the jabs . She was then taken off air I believe. Some time later she was back on air again day after day, week in, week out and no doubt earning a fortune, telling everyone to get jabbed.

Today she is giving all the facts and figures on people damaged by the jabs.

This is what she was saying in 2021:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=628147571533495

In this video, she's talking about young people and explains the risks and benefits. She is very clear that she would recommend vaccination for this group.

ronib

Haven’t you heard of vaccine damage? growstuff

Yes, of course I have. I've also read up about it and it's absolutely clear that vaccine damage is minimal compared with the damage caused by Covid.

ronib I have a genuine question for you.

If / when the next global pandemic happens would your view be that the medical profession don’t try to combat it via vaccination?

Should we just leave the virus to do whatever it does and see what happens?

To get back on topic. If you have read any politicians’ memoir a common theme is that it takes a year or so to master a ministerial brief. Yet, we have a reshuffle after 12 months - why?

I can think of 3 reasons: one, an acknowledgement that the PM put the wrong people into post; 2, a reaction to pressure from the electorate and the media for results and, 3, a need to protect himself from any attempt to overthrow his leadership. It is more than likely a bit of all 3.

Remember, all PMs now have a key (extremely well paid) special adviser looking after their backs. This reshuffle will have been orchestrated by him. He was just waiting for an opportunity to make the changes.

Primrose53

I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Radio 2 today talking about people damaged from covid jabs. When covid started, She initially told listeners and viewers that she did not approve of the jabs . She was then taken off air I believe. Some time later she was back on air again day after day, week in, week out and no doubt earning a fortune, telling everyone to get jabbed.

Today she is giving all the facts and figures on people damaged by the jabs.

I don't usually listen to Jeremy Vine, so I listened to the whole interview with Sarah Jarvis. She wasnot talking about people who had been damaged by Covid jabs - that is fake news.

She was talking about Long Covid. The facts and figures she gave were those who have been affected by Long Covid.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002hwvd

Sorry for going off track.

Yes, also sorry for deviating from main topic.

However, would still appreciate an answer to my question from ronib, as she raised the issue.

growstuff

Primrose53

I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Radio 2 today talking about people damaged from covid jabs. When covid started, She initially told listeners and viewers that she did not approve of the jabs . She was then taken off air I believe. Some time later she was back on air again day after day, week in, week out and no doubt earning a fortune, telling everyone to get jabbed.

Today she is giving all the facts and figures on people damaged by the jabs.

I don't usually listen to Jeremy Vine, so I listened to the whole interview with Sarah Jarvis. She wasnot talking about people who had been damaged by Covid jabs - that is fake news.

She was talking about Long Covid. The facts and figures she gave were those who have been affected by Long Covid.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002hwvd

What about Primrose’s statement that she heard Sarah Jarvis talking about people damaged from covid jabs? It’s very odd when compared with your account of listening to the whole interview 🤔

MaizieD

growstuff

Primrose53

I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Radio 2 today talking about people damaged from covid jabs. When covid started, She initially told listeners and viewers that she did not approve of the jabs . She was then taken off air I believe. Some time later she was back on air again day after day, week in, week out and no doubt earning a fortune, telling everyone to get jabbed.

Today she is giving all the facts and figures on people damaged by the jabs.

I don't usually listen to Jeremy Vine, so I listened to the whole interview with Sarah Jarvis. She wasnot talking about people who had been damaged by Covid jabs - that is fake news.

She was talking about Long Covid. The facts and figures she gave were those who have been affected by Long Covid.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002hwvd

What about Primrose’s statement that she heard Sarah Jarvis talking about people damaged from covid jabs? It’s very odd when compared with your account of listening to the whole interview 🤔

I'm a bit confused Maizie.

Primrose wrote:

"I heard Dr Sarah Jarvis on Radio 2 today talking about people damaged from covid jabs."

This was on 8 September. Did Sarah Jarvis speak on some programme other than Jeremy Vine on 8 September? If so, which programme was it?

I listened to her whole interview on the Jeremy Vine Show. She didn't mention mention vaccines or vaccine damage once. She was talking about the damage caused by Long Covid.

I don't see how Primrose can possibly have heard Sarah Jarvis talking about damage from Covid jabs, unless it was on a different programme.

I posted a link to the programme, so that people can listen for themselves.

PS. Sorry to go off topic again, but this kind of misrepresentation causes me concern.

Interesting MaizieD🤔

I think I’ll listen to the interview myself later, so I can come to my own conclusion. Always a good idea, I find!

LizzieDrip Nordic countries did not approach COVID as we did here in terms of social isolation. Although populations were younger than here. So there isn’t a one approach which works.
Re vaccination- my DH chose not to be vaccinated and I was. When we both caught the virus, we had exactly the same reactions. It may have been that my last vaccination was out of date. It was an unpleasant and tiring experience but we were not especially ill.
As for your question, I guess a vaccine will be available when the next pandemic hits. This is how we respond in the NHS. And individuals will make their own choices.

Thanks for the link growstuff.

Perhaps, if Primrose listened to a different Radio 2 programme she could post a link or tell us the title of the programme?

LizzieDrip

Interesting MaizieD🤔

I think I’ll listen to the interview myself later, so I can come to my own conclusion. Always a good idea, I find!

Please do. If I've made a mistake, I'll apologise.

growstuff

LizzieDrip

Interesting MaizieD🤔

I think I’ll listen to the interview myself later, so I can come to my own conclusion. Always a good idea, I find!

Please do. If I've made a mistake, I'll apologise.

I'll listen, too.

I find it very odd that two people could listen to the same programme and hear completely different things.

Sorry to continue with the thread derailment but I feel it needs clarifying.

(Besides, the reshuffle is old news now.. )

I think sometimes people just hear what they want to hear .

This was on 8 September. Did Sarah Jarvis speak on some programme other than Jeremy Vine on 8 September? If so, which programme was it? I listened to her whole interview on the Jeremy Vine Show. She didn't mention mention vaccines or vaccine damage once. She was talking about the damage caused by Long Covid. I don't see how Primrose can possibly have heard Sarah Jarvis talking about damage from Covid jabs, unless it was on a different programme. I posted a link to the programme, so that people can listen for themselves

I’ve now listened to yesterday’s Dr Sarah Jarvis interview on Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine show).

As growstuff says, she was talking about the effects of Long Covid not damage from vaccines.

Confused about which interview Primrose referred to?

RinseAndRepeat

To get back on topic. If you have read any politicians’ memoir a common theme is that it takes a year or so to master a ministerial brief. Yet, we have a reshuffle after 12 months - why?

I can think of 3 reasons: one, an acknowledgement that the PM put the wrong people into post; 2, a reaction to pressure from the electorate and the media for results and, 3, a need to protect himself from any attempt to overthrow his leadership. It is more than likely a bit of all 3.

Remember, all PMs now have a key (extremely well paid) special adviser looking after their backs. This reshuffle will have been orchestrated by him. He was just waiting for an opportunity to make the changes.

I think you’re right on the button there. Getting back on topic may prove difficult tho😁

Very astute post Rinse&Repeat.

Cabinet reshuffles have become the norm, whichever party is in power. I read this the other day when it first happened, I like to know the historical context to understand what’s happening now.
www.smf.co.uk/commentary_podcasts/everyday-im-reshuffling-a-look-at-historic-reshuffles-and-frontbench-churn/
It is the same in all public service I think - constant reshuffling, which does not help with delivery because accountability keeps being shifted.

RinseAndRepeat

To get back on topic. If you have read any politicians’ memoir a common theme is that it takes a year or so to master a ministerial brief. Yet, we have a reshuffle after 12 months - why?

I can think of 3 reasons: one, an acknowledgement that the PM put the wrong people into post; 2, a reaction to pressure from the electorate and the media for results and, 3, a need to protect himself from any attempt to overthrow his leadership. It is more than likely a bit of all 3.

Remember, all PMs now have a key (extremely well paid) special adviser looking after their backs. This reshuffle will have been orchestrated by him. He was just waiting for an opportunity to make the changes.

It appears to me that Starmer is having a re-set.

He may well have realised he needed to shuffle the Cabinet around although I wonder why Yvette Cooper was moved? Would he have done this without Angela Rayner having to resign ie was it forced on him or was it a good opportunity for a reshuffle?

After the unpopular moves they made when they first took office, perhaps he thinks he needs to present a more positive, optimistic outlook to the nation because he can see that many voters are disgruntled and are moving to Reform (which would be a disaster!).

He's not daft.

I don't think he's daft either, which is why I'm a bit puzzled. I can't see what the reshuffle is likely to achieve, especially as he hasn't moved the two people (Reeves and Kendall) I would personally have moved.

(Ah well! I'm not PM - and am never likely to be - I'm just hoping he does have a plan.)

The commentators I follow say that he intended an autumn reshuffle, anyway. It's just been brought forward a bit.

Like growstuff, I think Reeves should have gone. She's terrible.

growstuff

I don't think he's daft either, which is why I'm a bit puzzled. I can't see what the reshuffle is likely to achieve, especially as he hasn't moved the two people (Reeves and Kendall) I would personally have moved.

(Ah well! I'm not PM - and am never likely to be - I'm just hoping he does have a plan.)

especially as he hasn't moved the two people (Reeves and Kendall) I would personally have moved.
I'd have done the same, moved Rachel Reeves, but I thought he had moved Liz Kendall and replaced her with Pat McFadden?
Liz Kendall is now in charge of Science, Innovation and Technology.

Ah! Thanks! I missed that move. I don't know much about Pat McFadden, so I'll go and look him up.

I actually do think changes need to be made in the benefits system (boo hiss), but it's a poisoned chalice. The Conservatives should have done it because people think they're the Nasty Party anyway. Labour can't afford to be seen as nasty.

The trouble with Kendall was that she lacked any charisma and came across as dictatorial and unsympathetic.