England cases down aggressively, hospital admissions down 15% on last week, and total hospital occupancy down on yesterday and same day last week.
So - lockdown coming then...
Sir Keir last week
“Sir Keir Starmer today called for No10 to reintroduce compulsory face masks and WFH guidance in response to rising Covid cases amid growing calls for ministers to resort to Plan B — despite Government modelling suggesting the measures are unnecessary.”
The Labour leadership's enthusiasm for stapling cloth gags to people's faces forever yet again reminds us why there is as much toleration for Boris Johnson as still remains. You only have to look at the God-awful alternative.
I accept that there are reasons for folk not wanting to vote Labour but I fail to see that SKS pushing mask wearing in a climate where all polling shows a majority supporting it or even extending it is a killer point. The man babies of PB are not particularly representative of the general public on this issue (and in oh so many other ways) afaics.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
She is a crank, and neatly illustrates the old maxim that perfect is the enemy of good.
But thinking it through, on this early Friday evening/late afternoon. If everyone who really, really cared about climate change were to amend their behaviour dramatically then that would be problem solved.
A bit like if people only stopped buying the Daily Mail and/or started buying the Socialist Worker those newspapers would experience a dramatic change of fortune.
The number of people who really, really care about climate change drops as soon as they have to change their lifestyle or pay up.
Which is why we are not going to stop it. So 3 billion climate refugees by 2070...
Great date that, 2070. Just out of reach.
But no one seems to be taking it seriously. So I wonder.
Fucking hell, next he'll admit to not knowing 'Paki' is an offensive term.
Yorkshire head coach Andrew Gale is being investigated by bosses over anti-Semitic social media messages, it has emerged amid the club's deepening racism crisis.
In a now deleted post on Twitter from November 2010, the then club captain told Paul Dews, who was head of media at Leeds United Football Club at the time, to "Button it y--!"
Gale told the Jewish News website, which first reported the tweet, that he was “completely unaware” of the offensive nature of the term at the time he sent the message.
I am starting to think Yorkshire CCC won't survive this.
I think they need to appoint me Chief Executive and Executive Chairman of YCCC and I'll fix all the problems.
A strong Yorkshire means a strong England.
I have always found Yorkshire kind of annoying, for a few reasons:
1. Claiming to be in the North, even though parts of it are closer to London than to the Scottish border 2. Yorkshire Tea, which self-evidently isn't produced in Yorkshire 3. Being referred to by its residents as God's own Country, which seems rather boastful and potentially blasphemous, especially if you've ever spent time in some of the ropier bits 4. Geoffrey Boycott.
Boycott, I'll concede. You can have YCCC too.
As a southerner naturalised in Yorkshire I answer the others as follows: 1. Anything north of Watford Gap is north. Plus Yorkshire folk say bath, not barth. 2. Yorkshire tea is indeed produced in Yorkshire. The raw ingredients come from elsewhere. Next you'll be claiming that BP petrol isn't really British! 3. God's Own Country? Well Jacob Rees-Mogg says it isn't.[1] Case closed?
On the basis that JRM is always wrong I will concede 3. On 1. you are basically denying the existence of the Midlands, where I think most of Yorkshire is located. On 2., I think the petrol refining process is a more substantive procedure than mixing up tea leaves from several countries and putting them in a perforated bag. Yorkshire tea is not from Yorkshire (it is from India, Sri Lanka and Kenya).
Ah, compromise I'm happy to negotiate.
On 1. There was a lad at university (in the midlands) from Nottingham who denied he was northern. We didn't believe him, either. I have slightly more sympathy with his position now. Happy to re-set the dividing line to the Humber and disown South Yorkshire (happy, on current events, to lose West Yorkshire, too). On 2. Rename the product to 'Yorkshire Teabags'? At least until it turns out the bagging is done in High Wycombe...
Traditionally the barrier between some form of North and South has been the Trent and the Fosse Way.
In the Roman period the Fosse was the boundary between the civilian and military zones.
Then in the Hundred Years War the Trent was used as a boundary for tax revenues. During the reign of Edward III all counties had to provide taxes for paying for the campaigns. Exemptions were made for the south coast counties which were already having to pay for the defence against raids and also any county North of the Trent as that was considered bandit country defending against those evil Scots.
During the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Trent again was considered the boundary between the loyal South and the rebellious North
If the definition of North is rebellious - remember that North of the Tees Prince Bishops had to be appointed to keep the locals in line.
Which means the Midlands could start/stop as far North as the Tees.
Personally though - I would classify North and West Yorkshire as North and slightly more um and err before putting South Yorkshire in the North.
There is of course no such thing as South Yorkshire, it is mostly all the West Riding...
Could be worse, I suppose. At least it isn't Greater Sheffield (although sometimes I wonder).
Note the total acceptance that Divvie will be an #indyref3 type.
How long does PB have to put up with his garbage?
FWIW I don't think theuniondivvie is right. There won't be a third. I think the independence side will win the second one.
If SNP Types could just accept the result of the last referendum - that might allow for a potential #indyref2 at some point in the future.
As it is all PBers will just have to cope with constant SNP Type wittering pretty much 24/7.
PB is open to wittering from SNP Types just as it is to wittering from Conservative Types, Labour Types, Lib Dem Types, Green Types, Brexit Party or whatever the fuck they're called these days Types, and even People Who Don't Belong In A Type Types.
I don't know which Type you are, but please continue to post your Type's witterings too.
I'm a Yoon Type and am very much grateful that I'm allowed to witter by Team OGH.
Seems only fair given the abundance of SNP Types here, Balance and all that.
Well it seems to me that you redress this obvious imbalance with the sound logic and quiet dignity of your arguments.
The thing that is always said about how long he’ll be in Number 10 is that his salary as PM is nowhere what he was earning from journalism before he became leader and PM and it is said that he is under pressure financially. I have always thought that it will be this factor that could be decisive.
This assumes there are two possibilities:
Johnson quits to get a better salary
Johnson stays on and his salary stays the same
But really, what's stopping him giving himself a raise? Do we really think he'd be too embarrassed?
Even if you think he wouldn't do it now for political reasons, that's no reason to think he would step down before an election, when he could be counting on the idea of increasing his pay after any win.
I am not much of a bettor, but I definitely wouldn't bet on Johnson lacking chutzspa or deferring to ethics.
He'd not actually be totally unjustified. I'm not going to wheel out the tiny violin, but UK leaders aren't hugely well paid (he's on a lot less than Jacinda Ardern for instance).
Is it a major priority? No. Would I do it in his place? No. Would there be an uproar? Yes. But it'd actually be a hell of a lot better than the approach he does in fact take of accepting lavish freebies and favours from secretive donors with a cocktail of ulterior motives. If the trade-off was he'd knock that off and settle for the salary, that's a bit of a win. Of course, the problem is he'd most likely do both.
Fuck? As in, a word that's become less offensive over time. When I were a lad, it was a complete no-no, whereas these days - well, I believe it's very common, even on television and in the cinema......
I still couldn't say it in earshot of my parents but, yes, these days it's more a case of you're a bit unusual if you don't spray that around. I watched a Bob Dylan doc recently and the (still) angelic looking Joan Baez when being interviewed could not get through a sentence without a dozen or so fucks. It was slightly disconcerting.
My parents were incredibly averse to swearing - over 35 years with them, the most severe expression they ever used was "bloody". The perhaps perverse result was that when I first met a girl who said fuck, I thought it was incredibly sexy and liberating. Many years later, when I worked as PPS for Margaret Beckett, who said it all the time in the sober environment of Defra, I still got a modest thrill out of it. An innocent soul.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
You guys know about this stuff. If the FDA and its brethren accelerate approval of the Pfizer drug, how long before they can ramp up production and these pills reach Europe? What's a likely time-scale?
It feels like Europe - the mainland anyway - is now in a sprint between the winter wave and the arrival of these antivirals
The site will already have been inspected and approved. Little white pills can be churned out very quickly. It only depends if there is any bespoke equipment needed, which I doubt
Ta. So it's all about approval. And then they arrive days later? Could be a total game-changer
Pfizer say they will seek approval in the USA by Thanksgiving: November 25
I imagine that approval will be miraculously swift, if the pills are as good as they seem. So they *could* be in European mouths by Christmas, if the EMA is as nimble?
You need the site inspection by the EMA as well as the dossier review.
So what's a likely time-scale, in your opinion? How long before these arrive at a GP near you or Kamski?
Depends how quickly Pfizer file with the EMA but they are not quick. Travel logistics for the site inspection will be tricky as well
Could you put a figure on it? Sorry to harangue you but you have expertise
Ten weeks? Twenty?
The difference could be utterly crucial as cases and deaths begin to rise in Europe
There's a very curious north-south divide in Europe right now: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark (which had previously been completely spared) are all seeing soaring cases, while in the South the numbers have barely budged. I wonder how much of this is weather related.
I think the long period of good late summer/early autumn weather here in Germany played a big part in keeping numbers relatively low up until recently. But there's also:
Vaccination rates in Portugal and Spain and Italy are higher than in Germany. I blame the strong German tradition of "alternative" medicine.
Regulations are stricter in some places (definitely in Italy), and seem to be much more strictly enforced in both Italy and Spain. Enforcement of the few rules (mainly 3g rules) is very lax in my experience round here. It's the freedom-loving Germans again!
Numbers with immunity from prior infection are probably also quite a bit lower.
What happened to that guy with the immunological dark matter theory?
The vaccine split in Germany is almost entirely East-West.
Not entirely. Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg have fewer vaccinated than Meck-Pomm and Berlin. Also I would be a bit suspicious of how accurate the numbers are.
The top seven states are all in the West, and the bottom four are all in the former DDR!
Isn't the West also meaningfully younger than the East (except Berlin)? Which means that the effective vaccination rates are even worse for the East than the headline numbers.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
Are you being serious? Just like "Scouser"? Because it's not like the p-word has any history or form of being corrosive or hateful or violently discriminating, now, is it?
Roger pull yourself together.
And edit: if he said "you lot" instead of the p-word it makes it not one iota less grossly offensive.
Fuck? As in, a word that's become less offensive over time. When I were a lad, it was a complete no-no, whereas these days - well, I believe it's very common, even on television and in the cinema......
I still couldn't say it in earshot of my parents but, yes, these days it's more a case of you're a bit unusual if you don't spray that around. I watched a Bob Dylan doc recently and the (still) angelic looking Joan Baez when being interviewed could not get through a sentence without a dozen or so fucks. It was slightly disconcerting.
My parents were incredibly averse to swearing - over 35 years with them, the most severe expression they ever used was "bloody". The perhaps perverse result was that when I first met a girl who said fuck, I thought it was incredibly sexy and liberating. Many years later, when I worked as PPS for Margaret Beckett, who said it all the time in the sober environment of Defra, I still got a modest thrill out of it. An innocent soul.
The best swearing ever is Spitting Image's DoE - 'bloody, bloody Duke of Endinburgh'
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
Thank you. I was short of context. That casts an entirely different light on it.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
She is a crank, and neatly illustrates the old maxim that perfect is the enemy of good.
But thinking it through, on this early Friday evening/late afternoon. If everyone who really, really cared about climate change were to amend their behaviour dramatically then that would be problem solved.
A bit like if people only stopped buying the Daily Mail and/or started buying the Socialist Worker those newspapers would experience a dramatic change of fortune.
The number of people who really, really care about climate change drops as soon as they have to change their lifestyle or pay up.
Which is why we are not going to stop it. So 3 billion climate refugees by 2070...
Great date that, 2070. Just out of reach.
But no one seems to be taking it seriously. So I wonder.
There are testable predictions, though. Two I have heard recently are no skiing in the Alps and no champagne from Champagne by 2050. I expect to be around to see for myself how these turn out.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
She is a crank, and neatly illustrates the old maxim that perfect is the enemy of good.
But thinking it through, on this early Friday evening/late afternoon. If everyone who really, really cared about climate change were to amend their behaviour dramatically then that would be problem solved.
A bit like if people only stopped buying the Daily Mail and/or started buying the Socialist Worker those newspapers would experience a dramatic change of fortune.
The number of people who really, really care about climate change drops as soon as they have to change their lifestyle or pay up.
Which is why we are not going to stop it. So 3 billion climate refugees by 2070...
Great date that, 2070. Just out of reach.
But no one seems to be taking it seriously. So I wonder.
There are testable predictions, though. Two I have heard recently are no skiing in the Alps and no champagne from Champagne by 2050. I expect to be around to see for myself how these turn out.
Pretty random. It's a posho climate apocalypse then?
Note the total acceptance that Divvie will be an #indyref3 type.
How long does PB have to put up with his garbage?
FWIW I don't think theuniondivvie is right. There won't be a third. I think the independence side will win the second one.
If SNP Types could just accept the result of the last referendum - that might allow for a potential #indyref2 at some point in the future.
As it is all PBers will just have to cope with constant SNP Type wittering pretty much 24/7.
PB is open to wittering from SNP Types just as it is to wittering from Conservative Types, Labour Types, Lib Dem Types, Green Types, Brexit Party or whatever the fuck they're called these days Types, and even People Who Don't Belong In A Type Types.
I don't know which Type you are, but please continue to post your Type's witterings too.
I'm a Yoon Type and am very much grateful that I'm allowed to witter by Team OGH.
Seems only fair given the abundance of SNP Types here, Balance and all that.
Well it seems to me that you redress this obvious imbalance with the sound logic and quiet dignity of your arguments.
For some reason I'm reminded of the then Ms Ruth Davidson who spent almost her entire career as leader of the SCUP denouncing the very idea of indyref2 and attacking the waste of time spent on it by means of discussing it extensively in every corner of the media, any moment of time, and every scrap of paper she could fill.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
Are you being serious? Just like "Scouser"? Because it's not like the p-word has any history or form of being corrosive or hateful or violently discriminating, now, is it?
Roger pull yourself together.
"I've noticed that some labels are regarded as harmless, so I'm going to suggest that all labels are equally so, because either literally nobody's ever thought of this before, or because they'll think I'm some kind of free-speech edgelord and secretly admire me. Fame awaits!"
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 8m Replying to @chrischirp There was a reduction in both LFD and PCR tests over half term, so take drop in reported cases with a grain of salt over half term.
She really is stupid. That means that last week's number will likely have been lower than the real number, and therefore the drop is larger.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
She is a crank, and neatly illustrates the old maxim that perfect is the enemy of good.
But thinking it through, on this early Friday evening/late afternoon. If everyone who really, really cared about climate change were to amend their behaviour dramatically then that would be problem solved.
A bit like if people only stopped buying the Daily Mail and/or started buying the Socialist Worker those newspapers would experience a dramatic change of fortune.
The number of people who really, really care about climate change drops as soon as they have to change their lifestyle or pay up.
Which is why we are not going to stop it. So 3 billion climate refugees by 2070...
Great date that, 2070. Just out of reach.
But no one seems to be taking it seriously. So I wonder.
There are testable predictions, though. Two I have heard recently are no skiing in the Alps and no champagne from Champagne by 2050. I expect to be around to see for myself how these turn out.
The shampoo will be coming from Yorkshire by then.
The latest polling still has the Tories comfortably winning most seats and most polls still have Boris preferred as PM to Starmer.
Unless that changes, Boris will survive up to 2024. Plus of course the longer he stays as PM the more his valued on the lecture circuit increases post Premiership. If he wants to be in the Blair and Thatcher league of speakers and earning millions on the lecture circuit he needs to be there for a decade at least
How many points ahead do Labour have to be for most seats crossover?
40 to 37 just manages it on new boundaries if everyone else stays the same.
Ominously, no majority is possible on those numbers without the SNP. Except Grand Coalition of course.
Labour's SNP problem never seems to go away. The only way it would is if somehow another independence referendum is held before the next election and the pro-Indy side loses it, which would mean they wouldn't be able to demand another one from Labour so soon.
Yeah. Although the really interesting thing about 40-37 is that there would be no combination which would produce a majority at all. Apart from 3. Lab SNP. CON SNP LAB CON.
You would feel the SNP would be in a strong position. Would not like to speculate what might happen. And how would voters behave if that were the prospect? Difficult to say.
Labour have been soft on the indyref2 for a while now. A Lab-SNP coaltion doesn't seem that unlikely.
Starmer would likely give the SNP indyref2 if he needs their confidence and supply to become PM in a hung parliament.
Probably with devomax as a carrot to Scots to try and get them to vote No again
I agree with this analysis apart from the devomax bit (although you may be right there too)
Us Yoons know that Tories/Bozo are best for the union.
Why don't you want to have the vote, win it, and kill Sindy off good and proper instead of this 'delay delay' approach?
You won't kill Sindy off unless a second vote is held a genuine generation after 2014, which is at minimum 10-15 years after. Canada proved that when the second Quebec independence referendum was only held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980.
Otherwise the SNP would demand indyref3 the next day you already having given in to them once and held indyref2 within a generation of indyref1, unless No won by a landslide
You will never kill off indyrefs
I have lived with them since the early 1950s
There's only been one!
The threat has been there since then, and remember Berwick where I lived in the early fifties has changed hands 13 times
You've changed your mind then? Last time I posted my opinion that the best way forward was to have the vote rather than frustrate it, you were a big 'yay' to that. I remember distinctly since I thought, "Oh, Big G agrees with me on this, excellent."
Yes I am not adverse to indyref2 as I believe it is winnable
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
And somebody's unearthed a Vaughan tweet from 2018 in which he says essentially that what this country needs is a leader like Trump. Cancel him, I say.
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 8m Replying to @chrischirp There was a reduction in both LFD and PCR tests over half term, so take drop in reported cases with a grain of salt over half term.
What on Earth are Christina and friends going to do once there’s no more pandemic, and a dozen journalists and TV producers no longer have them on speed dial?
She's got one thing right:
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 15m Although two thirds of over 75s are boosted, almost all of them are elgibile. In general, only about 55% of those who got their 2nd dose 6+ mnths ago have been boosted. We need to match the 500K a day we were doing in winter and spring!
====
Action this day.
"only about 55% of those who got their 2nd dose 6+ mnths ago have been boosted"
Considering the UK only started about six weeks ago, and that the number getting boosted is ramping, I don't think the UK is doing too badly.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
Are you being serious? Just like "Scouser"? Because it's not like the p-word has any history or form of being corrosive or hateful or violently discriminating, now, is it?
Roger pull yourself together.
And edit: if he said "you lot" instead of the p-word it makes it not one iota less grossly offensive.
No, there is a huge difference between "you lot" and the P word
"You lot" really could be anything. You need a window into his soul to see if he meant it in a racist way. Perhaps he did, but maybe he didn't.
P*ki is clearly racist and derogatory and a different kettle of unhappy fish
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
And somebody's unearthed a Vaughan tweet from 2018 saying essentially that what this country needs is a leader like Trump. Cancel him, I say.
Yep, that's it, I'm afraid. That's appalling and I totally mean it. Thank goodness he's from Lancashire.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
She is a crank, and neatly illustrates the old maxim that perfect is the enemy of good.
In our house, we don't let average be the enemy of barely acceptable.
Note the total acceptance that Divvie will be an #indyref3 type.
How long does PB have to put up with his garbage?
FWIW I don't think theuniondivvie is right. There won't be a third. I think the independence side will win the second one.
If SNP Types could just accept the result of the last referendum - that might allow for a potential #indyref2 at some point in the future.
As it is all PBers will just have to cope with constant SNP Type wittering pretty much 24/7.
PB is open to wittering from SNP Types just as it is to wittering from Conservative Types, Labour Types, Lib Dem Types, Green Types, Brexit Party or whatever the fuck they're called these days Types, and even People Who Don't Belong In A Type Types.
I don't know which Type you are, but please continue to post your Type's witterings too.
I'm a Yoon Type and am very much grateful that I'm allowed to witter by Team OGH.
Seems only fair given the abundance of SNP Types here, Balance and all that.
Well it seems to me that you redress this obvious imbalance with the sound logic and quiet dignity of your arguments.
For some reason I'm reminded of the then Ms Ruth Davidson who spent almost her entire career as leader of the SCUP denouncing the very idea of indyref2 and attacking the waste of time spent on it by means of discussing it extensively in every corner of the media, any moment of time, and every scrap of paper she could fill.
We all know where your allegiance is with regards to #indyref2
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
And somebody's unearthed a Vaughan tweet from 2018 saying essentially that what this country needs is a leader like Trump. Cancel him, I say.
He got his wish for all the good it’s done him (or the rest of us).
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
This seems odd. Who cares about a referendum many years past. K - you're better than this.
The thing that is always said about how long he’ll be in Number 10 is that his salary as PM is nowhere what he was earning from journalism before he became leader and PM and it is said that he is under pressure financially. I have always thought that it will be this factor that could be decisive.
This assumes there are two possibilities:
Johnson quits to get a better salary
Johnson stays on and his salary stays the same
But really, what's stopping him giving himself a raise? Do we really think he'd be too embarrassed?
Even if you think he wouldn't do it now for political reasons, that's no reason to think he would step down before an election, when he could be counting on the idea of increasing his pay after any win.
I am not much of a bettor, but I definitely wouldn't bet on Johnson lacking chutzspa or deferring to ethics.
He'd not actually be totally unjustified. I'm not going to wheel out the tiny violin, but UK leaders aren't hugely well paid (he's on a lot less than Jacinda Ardern for instance).
Is it a major priority? No. Would I do it in his place? No. Would there be an uproar? Yes. But it'd actually be a hell of a lot better than the approach he does in fact take of accepting lavish freebies and favours from secretive donors with a cocktail of ulterior motives. If the trade-off was he'd knock that off and settle for the salary, that's a bit of a win. Of course, the problem is he'd most likely do both.
100 years ago the Prime Minister was on £10,000 a year, not a bad screw for the times, and about half a million in modern pound coins. Otoh backbenchers were unpaid as they were expected to make money during the day and legislate at night.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
And somebody's unearthed a Vaughan tweet from 2018 saying essentially that what this country needs is a leader like Trump. Cancel him, I say.
Yep, that's it, I'm afraid. That's appalling and I totally mean it. Thank goodness he's from Lancashire.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
And somebody's unearthed a Vaughan tweet from 2018 saying essentially that what this country needs is a leader like Trump. Cancel him, I say.
Yep, that's it, I'm afraid. That's appalling and I totally mean it. Thank goodness he's from Lancashire.
Further thought. The arrival, we hope, of an extremely effective treatment for Covid-19, vindicates - potentially - the countries which have gone for Zero Covid. If they can just hold out for a few more months, they will be able to relax all restrictions knowing that the vast majority of people are now safe, because of the antivirals
They will have avoided mass deaths and suffering, albeit at the expense of rigorous lockdowns, isolation and quarantines
Up to a point, milord. The regimen for the antivirals is pretty ruthless: you have to spot covidians within three days of infection. So, quite a lot is bound to slip the net, surely, unless you test everyone every day?!
Three days of symptom onset isn't it? Which would be far easier.
I read "five days", somewhere, which is even better. But there's lots of conflicting info and opinion as this potentially game-changing news impacts
Certainly Pfizer shares are doing pretty nicely
That’s because they will make a shitload of cash from the vaccine. This year and next.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
This seems odd. Who cares about a referendum many years past. K - you're better than this.
I just mean the strong correlation between hard hard leavers and liking Trump and - as night follows day - fruity social views. It is the case, with usual caveats of #not all hard hard leavers.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
And somebody's unearthed a Vaughan tweet from 2018 saying essentially that what this country needs is a leader like Trump. Cancel him, I say.
Yep, that's it, I'm afraid. That's appalling and I totally mean it. Thank goodness he's from Lancashire.
I'd rather be a Yorkie than a Vaughan
V sad, i think Vaughan is ok.
So are people from Yorkshire. Reader, I married one.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
Are you being serious? Just like "Scouser"? Because it's not like the p-word has any history or form of being corrosive or hateful or violently discriminating, now, is it?
Roger pull yourself together.
And edit: if he said "you lot" instead of the p-word it makes it not one iota less grossly offensive.
No, there is a huge difference between "you lot" and the P word
"You lot" really could be anything. You need a window into his soul to see if he meant it in a racist way. Perhaps he did, but maybe he didn't.
P*ki is clearly racist and derogatory and a different kettle of unhappy fish
Bloke addressing bunch of sth Asian guys: "You lot".
Yes good point super ambiguous let's see if we can unpick the semiotics of that one.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
She is a crank, and neatly illustrates the old maxim that perfect is the enemy of good.
But thinking it through, on this early Friday evening/late afternoon. If everyone who really, really cared about climate change were to amend their behaviour dramatically then that would be problem solved.
A bit like if people only stopped buying the Daily Mail and/or started buying the Socialist Worker those newspapers would experience a dramatic change of fortune.
The number of people who really, really care about climate change drops as soon as they have to change their lifestyle or pay up.
Which is why we are not going to stop it. So 3 billion climate refugees by 2070...
Great date that, 2070. Just out of reach.
But no one seems to be taking it seriously. So I wonder.
Based on this FT model the other day. Half a century away. I am old enough to remember the Beatles breaking up, so remember 50 years ago. I don't expect to be around in 2070 but would rather like my boys to be.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
I think she's rather good. She's quite careful as to what she says. Her supporters are the problem.
Have you seen the Extinction Rebellion founder's "Advice to Young People as they face Annihilation"?
Further thought. The arrival, we hope, of an extremely effective treatment for Covid-19, vindicates - potentially - the countries which have gone for Zero Covid. If they can just hold out for a few more months, they will be able to relax all restrictions knowing that the vast majority of people are now safe, because of the antivirals
They will have avoided mass deaths and suffering, albeit at the expense of rigorous lockdowns, isolation and quarantines
Up to a point, milord. The regimen for the antivirals is pretty ruthless: you have to spot covidians within three days of infection. So, quite a lot is bound to slip the net, surely, unless you test everyone every day?!
Three days of symptom onset isn't it? Which would be far easier.
I read "five days", somewhere, which is even better. But there's lots of conflicting info and opinion as this potentially game-changing news impacts
Certainly Pfizer shares are doing pretty nicely
That’s because they will make a shitload of cash from the vaccine. This year and next.
It looks like there were two studies: one within 5 days of the start of symptoms, the other one was three days. Both worked but the results from 3 days are the ones in the headlines, as better than 5 days.
Fucking hell, next he'll admit to not knowing 'Paki' is an offensive term.
Yorkshire head coach Andrew Gale is being investigated by bosses over anti-Semitic social media messages, it has emerged amid the club's deepening racism crisis.
In a now deleted post on Twitter from November 2010, the then club captain told Paul Dews, who was head of media at Leeds United Football Club at the time, to "Button it y--!"
Gale told the Jewish News website, which first reported the tweet, that he was “completely unaware” of the offensive nature of the term at the time he sent the message.
I am starting to think Yorkshire CCC won't survive this.
I think they need to appoint me Chief Executive and Executive Chairman of YCCC and I'll fix all the problems.
A strong Yorkshire means a strong England.
I have always found Yorkshire kind of annoying, for a few reasons:
1. Claiming to be in the North, even though parts of it are closer to London than to the Scottish border 2. Yorkshire Tea, which self-evidently isn't produced in Yorkshire 3. Being referred to by its residents as God's own Country, which seems rather boastful and potentially blasphemous, especially if you've ever spent time in some of the ropier bits 4. Geoffrey Boycott.
Boycott, I'll concede. You can have YCCC too.
As a southerner naturalised in Yorkshire I answer the others as follows: 1. Anything north of Watford Gap is north. Plus Yorkshire folk say bath, not barth. 2. Yorkshire tea is indeed produced in Yorkshire. The raw ingredients come from elsewhere. Next you'll be claiming that BP petrol isn't really British! 3. God's Own Country? Well Jacob Rees-Mogg says it isn't.[1] Case closed?
On the basis that JRM is always wrong I will concede 3. On 1. you are basically denying the existence of the Midlands, where I think most of Yorkshire is located. On 2., I think the petrol refining process is a more substantive procedure than mixing up tea leaves from several countries and putting them in a perforated bag. Yorkshire tea is not from Yorkshire (it is from India, Sri Lanka and Kenya).
Ah, compromise I'm happy to negotiate.
On 1. There was a lad at university (in the midlands) from Nottingham who denied he was northern. We didn't believe him, either. I have slightly more sympathy with his position now. Happy to re-set the dividing line to the Humber and disown South Yorkshire (happy, on current events, to lose West Yorkshire, too). On 2. Rename the product to 'Yorkshire Teabags'? At least until it turns out the bagging is done in High Wycombe...
The thing that is always said about how long he’ll be in Number 10 is that his salary as PM is nowhere what he was earning from journalism before he became leader and PM and it is said that he is under pressure financially. I have always thought that it will be this factor that could be decisive.
This assumes there are two possibilities:
Johnson quits to get a better salary
Johnson stays on and his salary stays the same
But really, what's stopping him giving himself a raise? Do we really think he'd be too embarrassed?
Even if you think he wouldn't do it now for political reasons, that's no reason to think he would step down before an election, when he could be counting on the idea of increasing his pay after any win.
I am not much of a bettor, but I definitely wouldn't bet on Johnson lacking chutzspa or deferring to ethics.
Funnel the grift through the missus? Carrie to be paid £1 million a year as a premium travel writer?
SeanT would love that sort of money. From memory his travel writing pays little to nothing in return for him spending a week in freebie 5 star luxury...
Fucking hell, next he'll admit to not knowing 'Paki' is an offensive term.
Yorkshire head coach Andrew Gale is being investigated by bosses over anti-Semitic social media messages, it has emerged amid the club's deepening racism crisis.
In a now deleted post on Twitter from November 2010, the then club captain told Paul Dews, who was head of media at Leeds United Football Club at the time, to "Button it y--!"
Gale told the Jewish News website, which first reported the tweet, that he was “completely unaware” of the offensive nature of the term at the time he sent the message.
I am starting to think Yorkshire CCC won't survive this.
I think they need to appoint me Chief Executive and Executive Chairman of YCCC and I'll fix all the problems.
A strong Yorkshire means a strong England.
I have always found Yorkshire kind of annoying, for a few reasons:
1. Claiming to be in the North, even though parts of it are closer to London than to the Scottish border 2. Yorkshire Tea, which self-evidently isn't produced in Yorkshire 3. Being referred to by its residents as God's own Country, which seems rather boastful and potentially blasphemous, especially if you've ever spent time in some of the ropier bits 4. Geoffrey Boycott.
Boycott, I'll concede. You can have YCCC too.
As a southerner naturalised in Yorkshire I answer the others as follows: 1. Anything north of Watford Gap is north. Plus Yorkshire folk say bath, not barth. 2. Yorkshire tea is indeed produced in Yorkshire. The raw ingredients come from elsewhere. Next you'll be claiming that BP petrol isn't really British! 3. God's Own Country? Well Jacob Rees-Mogg says it isn't.[1] Case closed?
On the basis that JRM is always wrong I will concede 3. On 1. you are basically denying the existence of the Midlands, where I think most of Yorkshire is located. On 2., I think the petrol refining process is a more substantive procedure than mixing up tea leaves from several countries and putting them in a perforated bag. Yorkshire tea is not from Yorkshire (it is from India, Sri Lanka and Kenya).
Ah, compromise I'm happy to negotiate.
On 1. There was a lad at university (in the midlands) from Nottingham who denied he was northern. We didn't believe him, either. I have slightly more sympathy with his position now. Happy to re-set the dividing line to the Humber and disown South Yorkshire (happy, on current events, to lose West Yorkshire, too). On 2. Rename the product to 'Yorkshire Teabags'? At least until it turns out the bagging is done in High Wycombe...
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
No more apostrophes, even?
Cutting down on punctuation saves electricity. Therefore not using any punctuation is good for the environment.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
This seems odd. Who cares about a referendum many years past. K - you're better than this.
I just mean the strong correlation between hard hard leavers and liking Trump and - as night follows day - fruity social views. It is the case, with usual caveats of #not all hard hard leavers.
I think you're allowing youself to think unduly polarised thoughts.
I do see what you're saying though. 'Hard leavers' if they exist are probably few and far. Trump supporters in the UK much the same.
Most leave voters were and are pretty average folk. There simply can't be anything special about us. The whole idea that this somehow represents a division that should be dwelled upon is pretty dismal.
Fucking hell, next he'll admit to not knowing 'Paki' is an offensive term.
Yorkshire head coach Andrew Gale is being investigated by bosses over anti-Semitic social media messages, it has emerged amid the club's deepening racism crisis.
In a now deleted post on Twitter from November 2010, the then club captain told Paul Dews, who was head of media at Leeds United Football Club at the time, to "Button it y--!"
Gale told the Jewish News website, which first reported the tweet, that he was “completely unaware” of the offensive nature of the term at the time he sent the message.
I am starting to think Yorkshire CCC won't survive this.
I think they need to appoint me Chief Executive and Executive Chairman of YCCC and I'll fix all the problems.
A strong Yorkshire means a strong England.
I have always found Yorkshire kind of annoying, for a few reasons:
1. Claiming to be in the North, even though parts of it are closer to London than to the Scottish border 2. Yorkshire Tea, which self-evidently isn't produced in Yorkshire 3. Being referred to by its residents as God's own Country, which seems rather boastful and potentially blasphemous, especially if you've ever spent time in some of the ropier bits 4. Geoffrey Boycott.
Boycott, I'll concede. You can have YCCC too.
As a southerner naturalised in Yorkshire I answer the others as follows: 1. Anything north of Watford Gap is north. Plus Yorkshire folk say bath, not barth. 2. Yorkshire tea is indeed produced in Yorkshire. The raw ingredients come from elsewhere. Next you'll be claiming that BP petrol isn't really British! 3. God's Own Country? Well Jacob Rees-Mogg says it isn't.[1] Case closed?
On the basis that JRM is always wrong I will concede 3. On 1. you are basically denying the existence of the Midlands, where I think most of Yorkshire is located. On 2., I think the petrol refining process is a more substantive procedure than mixing up tea leaves from several countries and putting them in a perforated bag. Yorkshire tea is not from Yorkshire (it is from India, Sri Lanka and Kenya).
Ah, compromise I'm happy to negotiate.
On 1. There was a lad at university (in the midlands) from Nottingham who denied he was northern. We didn't believe him, either. I have slightly more sympathy with his position now. Happy to re-set the dividing line to the Humber and disown South Yorkshire (happy, on current events, to lose West Yorkshire, too). On 2. Rename the product to 'Yorkshire Teabags'? At least until it turns out the bagging is done in High Wycombe...
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
This seems odd. Who cares about a referendum many years past. K - you're better than this.
I don't think that's true at all. Context is everything. That was the point of my original post. If he's a 'strong Leaver' and he used the 'P' word then there is a strong prima facie case in my opinion.
Johnson has got almost no supporters whatsoever on the sleaze question amongst the Daily Mail faithful again today, and tons of vitriol.
I think the Tories may in the end take much more than a four or five per cent hit on this. From the comments and the polls the right seem to be sizing up the Reform Party as they once sized up UKIP, cancelling out Starmer's loss of four or five per cent to the Greens from when he suspended Corbyn.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
No more apostrophes, even?
Cutting down on punctuation saves electricity. Therefore not using any punctuation is good for the environment.
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
He's a Leaver, Roger. Quite a strong one. Don't know if you were aware of that.
This seems odd. Who cares about a referendum many years past. K - you're better than this.
I don't think that's true at all. Context is everything. That was the point of my original post. If he's a 'strong Leaver' and he used the 'P' word then there is a strong prima facie case in my opinion.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
No more apostrophes, even?
Cutting down on punctuation saves electricity. Therefore not using any punctuation is good for the environment.
There was a Bernard Manning joke on Parkinson one time. I wouldn't dare repeat it but it is topical given the goings on of YCC. He told it against himself and those who accused him of being racist and to show that comedy is inviolate. A bit like Dave Chappelle now.
And everyone then laughed uproariously. Including some as I remember it non-white critics of his being interviewed at the same time.
I agree that the boundaries of what's acceptable have shifted a lot, But it's actually hard to know what to do if someone with you on TV cracks a joke that seems offensive and everyone round you laughs uproariously. You can object, which sounds prissy. You can be stony-faced, which looks robotic. You can smile puzzledly (my usual technique), which looks dim-witted. Or you can laugh heartily and be thought a good sport. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the last reaction is genuine.
As I said the joke is now beyond the pale but it appeared genuinely "funny". Timing was 3/4 of it of course.
Timing and confidence are key to telling jokes well.
But also there's an issue that many comedians love to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and for some issues (see Carlin) what's acceptable moves so that what was borderline in the past can be fairly tame in the future.
But sometimes (see Manning) what's acceptable moves so that what was borderline in the past can be beyond the pale in the future.
Yes absolutely. It begs the question of what is funny. I want to think that if the joke was aimed at me then I would laugh but I can't be at all sure.
Some good jokes are truly and utterly offensive (including some racist jokes). I guess one has to know one's audience,
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
Are you being serious? Just like "Scouser"? Because it's not like the p-word has any history or form of being corrosive or hateful or violently discriminating, now, is it?
Roger pull yourself together.
And edit: if he said "you lot" instead of the p-word it makes it not one iota less grossly offensive.
No, there is a huge difference between "you lot" and the P word
"You lot" really could be anything. You need a window into his soul to see if he meant it in a racist way. Perhaps he did, but maybe he didn't.
P*ki is clearly racist and derogatory and a different kettle of unhappy fish
Bloke addressing bunch of sth Asian guys: "You lot".
Yes good point super ambiguous let's see if we can unpick the semiotics of that one.
Let’s hope your career never depends on some Witchfinder, like you, sniffing out the phrase ‘you lot’ and detecting Evilthink
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
No more apostrophes, even?
Cutting down on punctuation saves electricity. Therefore not using any punctuation is good for the environment.
Soimcallingyououtforwaste
Ah, I'm spreading the message, so I'm allowed to punctuate. In the same way people can fly on private jets to a climate summit. If you're doing the good work, you're better than the hoi polloi.
There was a Bernard Manning joke on Parkinson one time. I wouldn't dare repeat it but it is topical given the goings on of YCC. He told it against himself and those who accused him of being racist and to show that comedy is inviolate. A bit like Dave Chappelle now.
And everyone then laughed uproariously. Including some as I remember it non-white critics of his being interviewed at the same time.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
I think she's rather good. She's quite careful as to what she says. Her supporters are the problem.
Have you seen the Extinction Rebellion founder's "Advice to Young People as they face Annihilation"?
Johnson has got almost no supporters whatsoever on the sleaze question amongst the Daily Mail faithful again today, and tons of vitriol.
I think the Tories may in the end take much more than a four or five per cent hit on this. From the comments and the polls the right seem to be sizing up the Reform Party as they once sized up UKIP, cancelling out Starmer's loss of four or five per cent to the Greens from when he suspended Corbyn.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
I think she's rather good. She's quite careful as to what she says. Her supporters are the problem.
Have you seen the Extinction Rebellion founder's "Advice to Young People as they face Annihilation"?
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
No more apostrophes, even?
Cutting down on punctuation saves electricity. Therefore not using any punctuation is good for the environment.
Soimcallingyououtforwaste
ucudcuturtxtdwnmor
It's amazing how much you can mangle an English sentence and still have it understandable...
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. Meanwhile I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
No more apostrophes, even?
Cutting down on punctuation saves electricity. Therefore not using any punctuation is good for the environment.
There was a Bernard Manning joke on Parkinson one time. I wouldn't dare repeat it but it is topical given the goings on of YCC. He told it against himself and those who accused him of being racist and to show that comedy is inviolate. A bit like Dave Chappelle now.
And everyone then laughed uproariously. Including some as I remember it non-white critics of his being interviewed at the same time.
I agree that the boundaries of what's acceptable have shifted a lot, But it's actually hard to know what to do if someone with you on TV cracks a joke that seems offensive and everyone round you laughs uproariously. You can object, which sounds prissy. You can be stony-faced, which looks robotic. You can smile puzzledly (my usual technique), which looks dim-witted. Or you can laugh heartily and be thought a good sport. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the last reaction is genuine.
As I said the joke is now beyond the pale but it appeared genuinely "funny". Timing was 3/4 of it of course.
Timing and confidence are key to telling jokes well.
But also there's an issue that many comedians love to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and for some issues (see Carlin) what's acceptable moves so that what was borderline in the past can be fairly tame in the future.
But sometimes (see Manning) what's acceptable moves so that what was borderline in the past can be beyond the pale in the future.
Yes absolutely. It begs the question of what is funny. I want to think that if the joke was aimed at me then I would laugh but I can't be at all sure.
Some good jokes are truly and utterly offensive (including some racist jokes). I guess one has to know one's audience,
Comedy clubs and theatres in the US have started banning mobile phones, after too many ‘leaks’ of material.
A couple of words different in a joke can make a big difference when the comic is working it out, and something said at 1am in a club can look very different with no context written down on paper.
Further thought. The arrival, we hope, of an extremely effective treatment for Covid-19, vindicates - potentially - the countries which have gone for Zero Covid. If they can just hold out for a few more months, they will be able to relax all restrictions knowing that the vast majority of people are now safe, because of the antivirals
They will have avoided mass deaths and suffering, albeit at the expense of rigorous lockdowns, isolation and quarantines
Up to a point, milord. The regimen for the antivirals is pretty ruthless: you have to spot covidians within three days of infection. So, quite a lot is bound to slip the net, surely, unless you test everyone every day?!
Three days of symptom onset isn't it? Which would be far easier.
I read "five days", somewhere, which is even better. But there's lots of conflicting info and opinion as this potentially game-changing news impacts
Certainly Pfizer shares are doing pretty nicely
That’s because they will make a shitload of cash from the vaccine. This year and next.
It looks like there were two studies: one within 5 days of the start of symptoms, the other one was three days. Both worked but the results from 3 days are the ones in the headlines, as better than 5 days.
It amuses me how many leftwingers are ardent fans of what the Daily Heil has to say.
It's a bit like Cummings, as soon as he started attacking Boris the left suddenly started believing everything he said and wrote.
The Daily Mail is a very handy weathervane and testing-ground for populist rightwingers, not a moral bible. So much so that the government themselves take its headlines very seriously, like they did yesterday.
Johnson has got almost no supporters whatsoever on the sleaze question amongst the Daily Mail faithful again today, and tons of vitriol.
I think the Tories may in the end take much more than a four or five per cent hit on this. From the comments and the polls the right seem to be sizing up the Reform Party as they once sized up UKIP, cancelling out Starmer's loss of four or five per cent to the Greens from when he suspended Corbyn.
Fancy a wager on that, if one can be formulated?
A nice idea, but I'm only metaphorically a betting man ;.)
Further thought. The arrival, we hope, of an extremely effective treatment for Covid-19, vindicates - potentially - the countries which have gone for Zero Covid. If they can just hold out for a few more months, they will be able to relax all restrictions knowing that the vast majority of people are now safe, because of the antivirals
They will have avoided mass deaths and suffering, albeit at the expense of rigorous lockdowns, isolation and quarantines
Up to a point, milord. The regimen for the antivirals is pretty ruthless: you have to spot covidians within three days of infection. So, quite a lot is bound to slip the net, surely, unless you test everyone every day?!
Three days of symptom onset isn't it? Which would be far easier.
I read "five days", somewhere, which is even better. But there's lots of conflicting info and opinion as this potentially game-changing news impacts
Certainly Pfizer shares are doing pretty nicely
That’s because they will make a shitload of cash from the vaccine. This year and next.
It looks like there were two studies: one within 5 days of the start of symptoms, the other one was three days. Both worked but the results from 3 days are the ones in the headlines, as better than 5 days.
Further thought. The arrival, we hope, of an extremely effective treatment for Covid-19, vindicates - potentially - the countries which have gone for Zero Covid. If they can just hold out for a few more months, they will be able to relax all restrictions knowing that the vast majority of people are now safe, because of the antivirals
They will have avoided mass deaths and suffering, albeit at the expense of rigorous lockdowns, isolation and quarantines
Up to a point, milord. The regimen for the antivirals is pretty ruthless: you have to spot covidians within three days of infection. So, quite a lot is bound to slip the net, surely, unless you test everyone every day?!
Three days of symptom onset isn't it? Which would be far easier.
I read "five days", somewhere, which is even better. But there's lots of conflicting info and opinion as this potentially game-changing news impacts
Certainly Pfizer shares are doing pretty nicely
That’s because they will make a shitload of cash from the vaccine. This year and next.
It looks like there were two studies: one within 5 days of the start of symptoms, the other one was three days. Both worked but the results from 3 days are the ones in the headlines, as better than 5 days.
There was a Bernard Manning joke on Parkinson one time. I wouldn't dare repeat it but it is topical given the goings on of YCC. He told it against himself and those who accused him of being racist and to show that comedy is inviolate. A bit like Dave Chappelle now.
And everyone then laughed uproariously. Including some as I remember it non-white critics of his being interviewed at the same time.
I agree that the boundaries of what's acceptable have shifted a lot, But it's actually hard to know what to do if someone with you on TV cracks a joke that seems offensive and everyone round you laughs uproariously. You can object, which sounds prissy. You can be stony-faced, which looks robotic. You can smile puzzledly (my usual technique), which looks dim-witted. Or you can laugh heartily and be thought a good sport. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the last reaction is genuine.
As I said the joke is now beyond the pale but it appeared genuinely "funny". Timing was 3/4 of it of course.
Timing and confidence are key to telling jokes well.
But also there's an issue that many comedians love to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and for some issues (see Carlin) what's acceptable moves so that what was borderline in the past can be fairly tame in the future.
But sometimes (see Manning) what's acceptable moves so that what was borderline in the past can be beyond the pale in the future.
Yes absolutely. It begs the question of what is funny. I want to think that if the joke was aimed at me then I would laugh but I can't be at all sure.
Some good jokes are truly and utterly offensive (including some racist jokes). I guess one has to know one's audience,
Comedy clubs and theatres in the US have started banning mobile phones, after too many ‘leaks’ of material.
A couple of words different in a joke can make a big difference when the comic is working it out, and something said at 1am in a club can look very different with no context written down on paper.
The twins have a habit of watching "Slime Tutorials" which are sneaky mobile recordings of Broadway shows.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
I think she's rather good. She's quite careful as to what she says. Her supporters are the problem.
Have you seen the Extinction Rebellion founder's "Advice to Young People as they face Annihilation"?
Despite having a Glaswegian mother, I'm not hugely invested in the Scottish issue, being fairly neutral. But for Labour, the politics of it are simple. Starmer will fight the next election on a) no coalition with the SNP, b) no promise, or even hint, of another referendum. He has no choice.
What happens after that, if by any chance the Tories don't succeed in having a majority to form a government, will depend entirely on the numbers. But I'm confident that Starmer would prefer to risk another election rather than be held to ransom by the SNP.
I agree that Starmer will not fight on a second Brexit referendum. Whether he should is a different and more abstract question.
But on the SNP, SKS is in a trickier corner. The figures are obvious: The Tories can only form a government if they win or very nearly win; Labour cannot possibly form a Labour government without a Black Swan event. But they can easily form one in alliance of some sort with LD, Gn and SNP.
The Tory attack line is obvious. (1) Labour can't win (2) A vote for Labour in E and W is a vote for the SNP (3) If Labour won't deal with the SNP a vote for Labour is a vote for a result with no possible government (4) Vote Labour and they would have to call an election again immediately.
So vote for reliable, modest, competent, consistent, boring old Boris.
And there is a surprising amount of truth in all those attack lines. except the last of course.
Just saw Greta on the BBC webpage telling us the world of literally burning. I think I have solved the climate crisis.
All those who think as she does should instantly reduce their carbon footprint to zero or close to it. No more electricity, driving, flying, cooking hot food, you name it.
Given the urgency that will surely be the majority of the world's population. Hence problem solved. The remainder can go about their normal lives knowing that the planet is safe.
Your welcome.
I think she's rather good. She's quite careful as to what she says. Her supporters are the problem.
Have you seen the Extinction Rebellion founder's "Advice to Young People as they face Annihilation"?
Blimey. Helion, the private sector pulsed fusion effort, just raised $500m.
US investors are getting very serious about the prospects for fusion power within a decade.
I was reading a report this week from a European research house saying that the US and UK are leaving Europe in the dust for private finance for fusion technology startups and that the UK government could take a big lead over the EU if it creates a subsidy fund.
Michael Vaughan has strongly denied making a racially insensitive remark to three Asian cricketers during his time as Yorkshire captain, despite two of the players insisting he did so.
It is to be hoped the BBC analyst has better powers of recall than he did after an interview in 2007 about England’s ill-fated World Cup in the West Indies. Vaughan was reported by the interviewer to have referred to Andrew Flintoff as “Fredalo”, in reference to the all-rounder having to be rescued from a midnight pedalo escapade, prompting him to issue a statement insisting he “never used that word”.
The Guardian responded by posting the audio of his interview online, in which Vaughan said “Fredalo” not once but twice.
A former cabinet minister said: “No 10 lacks grey hair. It lacks a Willie Whitelaw. Frankly, Boris’s habit of not liking big guns around him is his fatal flaw. He doesn’t have any cabinet ministers who will call him up and say, ‘This is a f***ing stupid idea’.” Others say this criticism is unfair. “There is challenge there every day, with people putting across both sides of the argument,” a government source said. “There’s nothing casual about it.” The original plan to save Paterson was even more robust than the amendment.
and
Critics of the prime minister believe that the events of this week are part of a wider pattern. “The prime minister reverse ferrets not only in the building but in his own mind,” one government source said.
“He says, ‘We’ve got to get this done.’ He’s very gung-ho and then he convinces himself it was never his position in the first place and seems to think it was someone else’s fault.” Within No 10, few are prepared to stand up to the prime minister and insecurity is rife. “No 10 is full of people that nod along because they’re worried about their own positions,” one staffer said.
At the Corbynista family home today, unsurprisingly a lot of talk about Boris being awful ("he was drunk at COP26"), and agreement with Greta, but surprisingly no comment on the Paterson business at all, even after watching it reported on the news. Curious what sticks with people.
Despite having a Glaswegian mother, I'm not hugely invested in the Scottish issue, being fairly neutral. But for Labour, the politics of it are simple. Starmer will fight the next election on a) no coalition with the SNP, b) no promise, or even hint, of another referendum. He has no choice.
What happens after that, if by any chance the Tories don't succeed in having a majority to form a government, will depend entirely on the numbers. But I'm confident that Starmer would prefer to risk another election rather than be held to ransom by the SNP.
I agree that Starmer will not fight on a second Brexit referendum. Whether he should is a different and more abstract question.
But on the SNP, SKS is in a trickier corner. The figures are obvious: The Tories can only form a government if they win or very nearly win; Labour cannot possibly form a Labour government without a Black Swan event. But they can easily form one in alliance of some sort with LD, Gn and SNP.
The Tory attack line is obvious. (1) Labour can't win (2) A vote for Labour in E and W is a vote for the SNP (3) If Labour won't deal with the SNP a vote for Labour is a vote for a result with no possible government (4) Vote Labour and they would have to call an election again immediately.
So vote for reliable, modest, competent, consistent, boring old Boris.
And there is a surprising amount of truth in all those attack lines. except the last of course.
I fear you misunderstood my post. I was referring to a Scottish referendum, not a Brexit referendum. Although the same applies - he won't touch the latter with a bargepole.
At the Corbynista family home today, unsurprisingly a lot of talk about Boris being awful ("he was drunk at COP26"), and agreement with Greta, but surprisingly no comment on the Paterson business at all, even after watching it reported on the news. Curious what sticks with people.
It's the right, and older voters, that seem to be more furious. That's what I would be worrying about, if I was Our Bozza.
A former cabinet minister said: “No 10 lacks grey hair. It lacks a Willie Whitelaw. Frankly, Boris’s habit of not liking big guns around him is his fatal flaw. He doesn’t have any cabinet ministers who will call him up and say, ‘This is a f***ing stupid idea’.” Others say this criticism is unfair. “There is challenge there every day, with people putting across both sides of the argument,” a government source said. “There’s nothing casual about it.” The original plan to save Paterson was even more robust than the amendment.
and
Critics of the prime minister believe that the events of this week are part of a wider pattern. “The prime minister reverse ferrets not only in the building but in his own mind,” one government source said.
“He says, ‘We’ve got to get this done.’ He’s very gung-ho and then he convinces himself it was never his position in the first place and seems to think it was someone else’s fault.” Within No 10, few are prepared to stand up to the prime minister and insecurity is rife. “No 10 is full of people that nod along because they’re worried about their own positions,” one staffer said.
A former cabinet minister said: “No 10 lacks grey hair. It lacks a Willie Whitelaw. Frankly, Boris’s habit of not liking big guns around him is his fatal flaw. He doesn’t have any cabinet ministers who will call him up and say, ‘This is a f***ing stupid idea’.” Others say this criticism is unfair. “There is challenge there every day, with people putting across both sides of the argument,” a government source said. “There’s nothing casual about it.” The original plan to save Paterson was even more robust than the amendment.
and
Critics of the prime minister believe that the events of this week are part of a wider pattern. “The prime minister reverse ferrets not only in the building but in his own mind,” one government source said.
“He says, ‘We’ve got to get this done.’ He’s very gung-ho and then he convinces himself it was never his position in the first place and seems to think it was someone else’s fault.” Within No 10, few are prepared to stand up to the prime minister and insecurity is rife. “No 10 is full of people that nod along because they’re worried about their own positions,” one staffer said.
The problem is that they’ve burned their bridges there, so who can they persuade into No.10 to actually run the show?
I actually spoke to someone who has worked in Downing Street in the past and they said nobody would want to work in Number 10 under Boris Johnson.
He manages to couple the inertia of Mrs May's decision making process which then leads messy last minute decision making process which led to the Paterson fiasco.
Then you've got Carrie Antoinette and her people in senior decision making roles and a parallel power base.
It is well known Boris Johnson can make contradictory decisions within minutes.
They all know one day it will go horribly wrong and nobody wants to be there for that.
A former cabinet minister said: “No 10 lacks grey hair. It lacks a Willie Whitelaw. Frankly, Boris’s habit of not liking big guns around him is his fatal flaw. He doesn’t have any cabinet ministers who will call him up and say, ‘This is a f***ing stupid idea’.” Others say this criticism is unfair. “There is challenge there every day, with people putting across both sides of the argument,” a government source said. “There’s nothing casual about it.” The original plan to save Paterson was even more robust than the amendment.
and
Critics of the prime minister believe that the events of this week are part of a wider pattern. “The prime minister reverse ferrets not only in the building but in his own mind,” one government source said.
“He says, ‘We’ve got to get this done.’ He’s very gung-ho and then he convinces himself it was never his position in the first place and seems to think it was someone else’s fault.” Within No 10, few are prepared to stand up to the prime minister and insecurity is rife. “No 10 is full of people that nod along because they’re worried about their own positions,” one staffer said.
The problem is that they’ve burned their bridges there, so who can they persuade into No.10 to actually run the show?
Why? He was most of the problem while he was there because he not only fed Johnson's fantasies but was living out his own. Similarly, not having any deep understanding of the situation he kept getting his solutions wrong.
In any case, the ultimate problem isn't the weakness of No. 10, it's the weakness of the cabinet. There simply isn't anyone who would stand up to Johnson in it and due to his insecurities he would never appoint one.
At the Corbynista family home today, unsurprisingly a lot of talk about Boris being awful ("he was drunk at COP26"), and agreement with Greta, but surprisingly no comment on the Paterson business at all, even after watching it reported on the news. Curious what sticks with people.
I'm not sure the Paterson business wasn't done, dusted, and then reverse-ferreted too quickly for the uninterested to follow. Earlier scandals like expenses dragged on for weeks. Maybe people will catch up especially if there is more in the Sundays.
A former cabinet minister said: “No 10 lacks grey hair. It lacks a Willie Whitelaw. Frankly, Boris’s habit of not liking big guns around him is his fatal flaw. He doesn’t have any cabinet ministers who will call him up and say, ‘This is a f***ing stupid idea’.” Others say this criticism is unfair. “There is challenge there every day, with people putting across both sides of the argument,” a government source said. “There’s nothing casual about it.” The original plan to save Paterson was even more robust than the amendment.
and
Critics of the prime minister believe that the events of this week are part of a wider pattern. “The prime minister reverse ferrets not only in the building but in his own mind,” one government source said.
“He says, ‘We’ve got to get this done.’ He’s very gung-ho and then he convinces himself it was never his position in the first place and seems to think it was someone else’s fault.” Within No 10, few are prepared to stand up to the prime minister and insecurity is rife. “No 10 is full of people that nod along because they’re worried about their own positions,” one staffer said.
The problem is that they’ve burned their bridges there, so who can they persuade into No.10 to actually run the show?
Why? He was most of the problem while he was there because he not only fed Johnson's fantasies but was living out his own. Similarly, not having any deep understanding of the situation he kept getting his solutions wrong.
In any case, the ultimate problem isn't the weakness of No. 10, it's the weakness of the cabinet. There simply isn't anyone who would stand up to Johnson in it and due to his insecurities he would never appoint one.
Cummings has crafted some good messages at time but im not sure why that gets extrapolated to being the answer to deep issues.
At the Corbynista family home today, unsurprisingly a lot of talk about Boris being awful ("he was drunk at COP26"), and agreement with Greta, but surprisingly no comment on the Paterson business at all, even after watching it reported on the news. Curious what sticks with people.
I'm not sure the Paterson business wasn't done, dusted, and then reverse-ferreted too quickly for the uninterested to follow. Earlier scandals like expenses dragged on for weeks. Maybe people will catch up especially if there is more in the Sundays.
Oh no. Paterson will be remembered for a long time. He's managed to do more damage to the party he ostensibly represents than the opposition have done in years. If he finishes up in some ghastly mine it'll be too good for him.
At the Corbynista family home today, unsurprisingly a lot of talk about Boris being awful ("he was drunk at COP26"), and agreement with Greta, but surprisingly no comment on the Paterson business at all, even after watching it reported on the news. Curious what sticks with people.
I'm not sure the Paterson business wasn't done, dusted, and then reverse-ferreted too quickly for the uninterested to follow. Earlier scandals like expenses dragged on for weeks. Maybe people will catch up especially if there is more in the Sundays.
The media has sniffed a narrative, and got behind other stories related ; that's really what I was commenting on from the beginning today. Look at the comments beneath this piece :
It's truly been the Week That Was for PBers. As far as Great British U-Turns go, this most recent example must surely belong in the hall of fame.
. . . but meanwhile back at the ranch . . .
Yours truly has been absorbed with 2021 general election here in the great State of Washington. Pleased to report that, unlike in much of the rest of the country, Democrats not only avoided getting hammered, but actually scored a few modest but none-the-less significant gains here and there.
Note that most races were officially nonpartisan but often with significant partisan AND ideological contrasts between candidates.
CITY OF SEATTLE > Bruce Harrell, former city council member and moderate (by Seattle standards) Democrat is winning a whopping 62% versus 38% for progressive current council member Lorena González > in race for City Attorney (where the incumbent was eliminated in the primary) Ann Davison, a non-Trumpist (sort of) Republican, is winning 55% versus 45% for Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, who advocates abolishing much of the criminal justice system; while Democratic district organizations all endorsed NTK, many prominent Dems (such as former governors Gary Locke & Christine Gregoire) endorsed the Republican, and clearly most Seattle Democrats - including yours truly - voted for Davison. > in open at-large city council seat (now held by González) moderate Democrat Sara Nelson is defeating progressive activists and 2017 mayoral candidate Nikkita Oliver by 57% versus 43%
KING COUNTY (Seattle plus east & south suburbs) > Incumbent King Co Executive Dow Constantine, a moderate Democrat, is winning 56% versus 43% for progressive Democratic state senator Joe Nguyen (the GOP didn't bother to file a serious candidate for the August primary) > five seats on King Co Council were up this year, including the only three (out of nine) held by Republicans; four incumbents were re-elected handily, however long-time GOP incumbent Cathy Lambert is losing by 45% versus 55% for Democratic challenger Sarah Perry; this council district includes affluent Eastside King Co suburbs & exurbs that have been trending steadily Democratic for decades, with Lambert being the last domino to fall.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY (northern part of Seattle metro area) > no surprises & really not much happening electorally, though moderates did bit better than progressives in local races in Everett & other suburbs dominated these days by Democrats, while Republicans held there own exurban & rural turf. > most interesting, and for me gratifying result, was the defeat of the incumbent Proud Boy fellow travelling mayor of the City of Snohomish AND his cronies on the city council, by a moderate-progressive slate; note that this is a charming little tourist trap beloved by Seattlites as a weekend get-away; methinks locals were motivated by distaste of Trumpery AND concern that being perceived as a Putinist stronghold might NOT be good for business.
At the Corbynista family home today, unsurprisingly a lot of talk about Boris being awful ("he was drunk at COP26"), and agreement with Greta, but surprisingly no comment on the Paterson business at all, even after watching it reported on the news. Curious what sticks with people.
I'm not sure the Paterson business wasn't done, dusted, and then reverse-ferreted too quickly for the uninterested to follow. Earlier scandals like expenses dragged on for weeks. Maybe people will catch up especially if there is more in the Sundays.
The media has sniffed a narrative, and got behind other stories related ; that's really what I was commenting on from the beginning today. Look at the comments beneath this piece :
BBC statement on Michael Vaughan says he "won't appear as a presenter" on 5 Live's Tuffers & Vaughan Show on Monday. "We remain in discussion with Michael and his team". #bbccricket
That's Michael's career cancelled - that 2010 tweet was probably justification enough...
I met Michael Vaughan once when he was dining with Michael Atherton at Groucho's. A good enough reason to ban him from TV I know but he seemed very pleasant.
Irrespective of this I'm not at all comfortable with him being pilloried for his alleged comment to three players of Pakistani origin. Cricket is a game of banter. None more so than between the Australians the West Indians the South Africans the Indians and the Pakistanis. The competition between these cricketing nations is both fierce and friendly as any spectator at a test match will attest.
I have no idea about the behaviour of Yorkshire cricket Club which I can easily believe the worst of. They don't even like women in their pavilion! But the story with Micheal Vaughan is different. If they were playing a match and he jokingly said there are too many Geordies or too many Scousers would that also be worthy of a lifetime of shame?
Are you being serious? Just like "Scouser"? Because it's not like the p-word has any history or form of being corrosive or hateful or violently discriminating, now, is it?
Roger pull yourself together.
And edit: if he said "you lot" instead of the p-word it makes it not one iota less grossly offensive.
No, there is a huge difference between "you lot" and the P word
"You lot" really could be anything. You need a window into his soul to see if he meant it in a racist way. Perhaps he did, but maybe he didn't.
P*ki is clearly racist and derogatory and a different kettle of unhappy fish
Bloke addressing bunch of sth Asian guys: "You lot".
Yes good point super ambiguous let's see if we can unpick the semiotics of that one.
Yours truly is old enough to recall how Ross Perot (remember him?) got a LOT of flack for referring to his audience at the NAACP convention in 1992 (IIRC) as "you people".
Comments
But no one seems to be taking it seriously. So I wonder.
Could be worse, I suppose. At least it isn't Greater Sheffield (although sometimes I wonder).
Is it a major priority? No. Would I do it in his place? No. Would there be an uproar? Yes. But it'd actually be a hell of a lot better than the approach he does in fact take of accepting lavish freebies and favours from secretive donors with a cocktail of ulterior motives. If the trade-off was he'd knock that off and settle for the salary, that's a bit of a win. Of course, the problem is he'd most likely do both.
Isn't the West also meaningfully younger than the East (except Berlin)? Which means that the effective vaccination rates are even worse for the East than the headline numbers.
Roger pull yourself together.
And edit: if he said "you lot" instead of the p-word it makes it not one iota less grossly offensive.
(I'm being serious)
Considering the UK only started about six weeks ago, and that the number getting boosted is ramping, I don't think the UK is doing too badly.
"You lot" really could be anything. You need a window into his soul to see if he meant it in a racist way. Perhaps he did, but maybe he didn't.
P*ki is clearly racist and derogatory and a different kettle of unhappy fish
This year and next.
Yes good point super ambiguous let's see if we can unpick the semiotics of that one.
https://www.ft.com/content/072b5c87-7330-459b-a947-be6767a1099d
https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Pfizers-Novel-COVID-19-Oral-Antiviral-Treatment-Candidate-Reduced-Risk-of-Hospitalization-or-Death-by-89-in-Interim-Analysis-of-Phase-23-EPIC-HR-Study/default.aspx
These sort of therapeutics are why there is no need to rush to catch it. Both regimes were on the unvaxxed.
Stephen Flynn MP
@StephenFlynnSNP
·
4m
🗣 “…we will do better when we have that opportunity to take our own future into our own hands.
“And let me tell the members opposite, that day is coming faster than they dare think.”
#YES
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59167024
I do see what you're saying though. 'Hard leavers' if they exist are probably few and far. Trump supporters in the UK much the same.
Most leave voters were and are pretty average folk. There simply can't be anything special about us. The whole idea that this somehow represents a division that should be dwelled upon is pretty dismal.
I think the Tories may in the end take much more than a four or five per cent hit on this. From the comments and the polls the right seem to be sizing up the Reform Party as they once sized up UKIP, cancelling out Starmer's loss of four or five per cent to the Greens from when he suspended Corbyn.
Helion, the private sector pulsed fusion effort, just raised $500m.
US investors are getting very serious about the prospects for fusion power within a decade.
https://twitter.com/TBPInvictus/status/1456683999657615364?t=hiY8LjBBhBtWBV10I7HBHQ&s=19
She's still angry about it, but she couldn't stop herself laughing
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nxevi
I have indirectly (via IP group) an investment in 'First light fusion' - an Oxford company.
All of them are pretty good bets at probably in effect 1000-1 or maybe more.
A couple of words different in a joke can make a big difference when the comic is working it out, and something said at 1am in a club can look very different with no context written down on paper.
Good article on the development here:
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pfizer-s-good-news-world-s-good-news
Side effects less than placebo too.
I bring good news for all mankind
Narcos Mexico Season 3 has just hit Netflix
But on the SNP, SKS is in a trickier corner. The figures are obvious: The Tories can only form a government if they win or very nearly win; Labour cannot possibly form a Labour government without a Black Swan event. But they can easily form one in alliance of some sort with LD, Gn and SNP.
The Tory attack line is obvious. (1) Labour can't win (2) A vote for Labour in E and W is a vote for the SNP (3) If Labour won't deal with the SNP a vote for Labour is a vote for a result with no possible government (4) Vote Labour and they would have to call an election again immediately.
So vote for reliable, modest, competent, consistent, boring old Boris.
And there is a surprising amount of truth in all those attack lines. except the last of course.
Michael Vaughan has strongly denied making a racially insensitive remark to three Asian cricketers during his time as Yorkshire captain, despite two of the players insisting he did so.
It is to be hoped the BBC analyst has better powers of recall than he did after an interview in 2007 about England’s ill-fated World Cup in the West Indies. Vaughan was reported by the interviewer to have referred to Andrew Flintoff as “Fredalo”, in reference to the all-rounder having to be rescued from a midnight pedalo escapade, prompting him to issue a statement insisting he “never used that word”.
The Guardian responded by posting the audio of his interview online, in which Vaughan said “Fredalo” not once but twice.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amanda-staveleys-company-can-borrow-money-from-fellow-newcastle-shareholder-2f023shrg
A former cabinet minister said: “No 10 lacks grey hair. It lacks a Willie Whitelaw. Frankly, Boris’s habit of not liking big guns around him is his fatal flaw. He doesn’t have any cabinet ministers who will call him up and say, ‘This is a f***ing stupid idea’.” Others say this criticism is unfair. “There is challenge there every day, with people putting across both sides of the argument,” a government source said. “There’s nothing casual about it.” The original plan to save Paterson was even more robust than the amendment.
and
Critics of the prime minister believe that the events of this week are part of a wider pattern. “The prime minister reverse ferrets not only in the building but in his own mind,” one government source said.
“He says, ‘We’ve got to get this done.’ He’s very gung-ho and then he convinces himself it was never his position in the first place and seems to think it was someone else’s fault.” Within No 10, few are prepared to stand up to the prime minister and insecurity is rife. “No 10 is full of people that nod along because they’re worried about their own positions,” one staffer said.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downing-street-yes-men-blamed-for-johnsons-failed-bid-to-save-owen-paterson-090mkzklf
The problem is that they’ve burned their bridges there, so who can they persuade into No.10 to actually run the show?
He manages to couple the inertia of Mrs May's decision making process which then leads messy last minute decision making process which led to the Paterson fiasco.
Then you've got Carrie Antoinette and her people in senior decision making roles and a parallel power base.
It is well known Boris Johnson can make contradictory decisions within minutes.
They all know one day it will go horribly wrong and nobody wants to be there for that.
In any case, the ultimate problem isn't the weakness of No. 10, it's the weakness of the cabinet. There simply isn't anyone who would stand up to Johnson in it and due to his insecurities he would never appoint one.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10169337/Boris-Johnson-REFUSES-tell-Commons-sleaze-watchdog-Marbella-family-holiday-worth.html
. . . but meanwhile back at the ranch . . .
Yours truly has been absorbed with 2021 general election here in the great State of Washington. Pleased to report that, unlike in much of the rest of the country, Democrats not only avoided getting hammered, but actually scored a few modest but none-the-less significant gains here and there.
Note that most races were officially nonpartisan but often with significant partisan AND ideological contrasts between candidates.
CITY OF SEATTLE
> Bruce Harrell, former city council member and moderate (by Seattle standards) Democrat is winning a whopping 62% versus 38% for progressive current council member Lorena González
> in race for City Attorney (where the incumbent was eliminated in the primary) Ann Davison, a non-Trumpist (sort of) Republican, is winning 55% versus 45% for Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, who advocates abolishing much of the criminal justice system; while Democratic district organizations all endorsed NTK, many prominent Dems (such as former governors Gary Locke & Christine Gregoire) endorsed the Republican, and clearly most Seattle Democrats - including yours truly - voted for Davison.
> in open at-large city council seat (now held by González) moderate Democrat Sara Nelson is defeating progressive activists and 2017 mayoral candidate Nikkita Oliver by 57% versus 43%
KING COUNTY (Seattle plus east & south suburbs)
> Incumbent King Co Executive Dow Constantine, a moderate Democrat, is winning 56% versus 43% for progressive Democratic state senator Joe Nguyen (the GOP didn't bother to file a serious candidate for the August primary)
> five seats on King Co Council were up this year, including the only three (out of nine) held by Republicans; four incumbents were re-elected handily, however long-time GOP incumbent Cathy Lambert is losing by 45% versus 55% for Democratic challenger Sarah Perry; this council district includes affluent Eastside King Co suburbs & exurbs that have been trending steadily Democratic for decades, with Lambert being the last domino to fall.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY (northern part of Seattle metro area)
> no surprises & really not much happening electorally, though moderates did bit better than progressives in local races in Everett & other suburbs dominated these days by Democrats, while Republicans held there own exurban & rural turf.
> most interesting, and for me gratifying result, was the defeat of the incumbent Proud Boy fellow travelling mayor of the City of Snohomish AND his cronies on the city council, by a moderate-progressive slate; note that this is a charming little tourist trap beloved by Seattlites as a weekend get-away; methinks locals were motivated by distaste of Trumpery AND concern that being perceived as a Putinist stronghold might NOT be good for business.