Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h I’m getting cancellations at both pubs for coming weeks, when people like Jenny Harries goes full on rogue and tells people not to socialise, it has consequences for the economy, jobs and mental health of the nation.
This guy gets a lot of mentions all over the place (not just here). Other than a bloke who owns a pub, is he a "somebody"? I genuinely don't know.
He owns two pubs in Essex. He seems to have become quite well known simply by plugging away on social media about how damaging lockdowns and so on are to the hospitality trade. Very very anti-vaxports. Think the Telegraph have had him write a couple of pieces on hospitality and covid.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h I’m getting cancellations at both pubs for coming weeks, when people like Jenny Harries goes full on rogue and tells people not to socialise, it has consequences for the economy, jobs and mental health of the nation.
This guy gets a lot of mentions all over the place (not just here). Other than a bloke who owns a pub, is he a "somebody"? I genuinely don't know.
He owns two pubs in Essex. He seems to have become quite well known simply by plugging away on social media about how damaging lockdowns and so on are to the hospitality trade. Very very anti-vaxports. Think the Telegraph have had him write a couple of pieces on hospitality and covid.
So he is the anti-lockdown equivalent of that "nick" bloke who does the same for anti-brexit, claiming "exclusive" or "breaking", when they are often wrong or they just read it elsewhere. They got a following by just blasting on twitter what a certain section of the population want to hear.
I presumed he was perhaps a somebody in a previous profession, who before COVID had gone into the pub trade, and hence why he had quite a big twitter following and got mentions.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
The day that Ed Balls announced that they'd abolished boon and bust, I was walking back to the bank I was working at.
A former derivatives trader I was working with was outside smoking. I told him, jokingly, what Ed had said. He went pale, said that was the top of the market, everyone was f&*ked and ran inside to start dumping his personal investments....
Indeed.
And still people here argue that "there but for the financial crisis" the economy would have been fine under Brown. 🙄
One of the key duties of the Treasury should always be to make sure we are as prepared as possible for the next crisis.
The point is that economic cycles happen for a reason. If you're borrowing heavily in the growth years, you're screwed when the next crisis comes along. If you're hubristic enough to think there's not going to be a next crisis . . . then you're royally fucked next time there's a crisis. Which is what happened and we all had to live with the consequences of that arrogance.
Who was the guy who sold ahead of the pack in '29? - the story went that the elevator boy was giving him stock tips. He realised that they were good tips. And that when any fool could make big money with random tipstering on the market it was time to run.....
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
With respect to the mention of Godwin's Law on the previous thread, is there a split between scientists and non-scientists?
As a scientist I view Godwin's Law as analogous to Newton's. It's a description of what happens. A way to help understand the world around us. In this case that most arguments reduce down to a question of what is the dividing line between good and evil, and the Nazis stand as the most widely accepted exemplar of evil to be used in such an argument.
Non-scientists might think of Law as a codification of what is forbidden, and the punishments for transgression. They would then see Godwin's Law as a prohibition on the mention of the Nazis.
Worth reading some of the replies. Complaints about increasing the cost of travel so only the wealthy can afford. Some also making the point that it is too late as Omicron is already everywhere.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on Pthis Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
I'm like PT, never seen it and have no idea who's who. You can update me on here if you think I need to know, but I won't be tuning in.
It's like any such series. People don't watch and often show disdain about them. And there are people who watch a couple of episodes and are hooked. You can just about get into anything if you start watching and personalities in the contestants begin to emerge.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h I’m getting cancellations at both pubs for coming weeks, when people like Jenny Harries goes full on rogue and tells people not to socialise, it has consequences for the economy, jobs and mental health of the nation.
Oh spare me! Economy, jobs fair enough. Mental health expertise from a pub owner? Give me a break. Utter wilful misinformative cant.
Looking forward to four o'clock: Another 333 down on yesterday's seven day average cases? Another encouraging decline in 7-day average deaths/hospitalisations?
Press conference at 4 so data delayed. They don't seem to have the bandwidth to do an update concurrently with the shonky slides.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
Will it now. Not watching BBC on principle. That's £175 down the drain. What are you watching atm? Looked at True Story which seems interesting.
Mask use up a little bit on my bus this morning and the same as am on the way home now, but still the vast majority not wearing. Older generations wearing but College aged teens and slightly older still not wearing.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
Will it now. Not watching BBC on principle. That's £175 down the drain. What are you watching atm? Looked at True Story which seems interesting.
Its not that I don't watch the BBC on principle, its that the BBC is mauve shit in general that's just not very good.
My favourite show at the moment is the Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. My favourite book series being brought to life in a way that I couldn't imagine the BBC even attempting.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months. There was no use having capacity to do 750k jabs a day, when you couldn't do anywhere near those as not enough eligible.
Also a lot of those doing the jabs earlier in the year were GPs and GP surgery nurses, so you were taking them away from their day job.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
And this is because it had the sense to revert to a much more Scandinavian solution, in a much more socially responsible country. Clear-eyed analysis, clear lines of responsibility, and clear sanctions.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
With respect to the mention of Godwin's Law on the previous thread, is there a split between scientists and non-scientists?
As a scientist I view Godwin's Law as analogous to Newton's. It's a description of what happens. A way to help understand the world around us. In this case that most arguments reduce down to a question of what is the dividing line between good and evil, and the Nazis stand as the most widely accepted exemplar of evil to be used in such an argument.
Non-scientists might think of Law as a codification of what is forbidden, and the punishments for transgression. They would then see Godwin's Law as a prohibition on the mention of the Nazis.
So you're trying to divide people between scientists and non-scientists? This populist, anti-intellectualism is exactly like Hitler.
One might also wonder how philosophers, historians (proper ones, like Ydoethur rather than [fill in blank], and lawyers might react.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
Will it now. Not watching BBC on principle. That's £175 down the drain. What are you watching atm? Looked at True Story which seems interesting.
Its not that I don't watch the BBC on principle, its that the BBC is mauve shit in general that's just not very good.
My favourite show at the moment is the Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. My favourite book series being brought to life in a way that I couldn't imagine the BBC even attempting.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
Will it now. Not watching BBC on principle. That's £175 down the drain. What are you watching atm? Looked at True Story which seems interesting.
Its not that I don't watch the BBC on principle, its that the BBC is mauve shit in general that's just not very good.
My favourite show at the moment is the Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. My favourite book series being brought to life in a way that I couldn't imagine the BBC even attempting.
Nor, from the reviews I've read, would they want to.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Wasn't deemed to be as urgent, prior to OMICRON?
In addition, the healthcare managers wanted vaccination fully rolled back into the mainstream NHS and the excessively customer oriented system replaced with one following standard NHS policies. Replacing book-your-own with a GP visit followed by being given a specific time and place of the *systems* choosing was the next thing to be bought in....
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
And this is because it had the sense to revert to a much more Scandinavian solution, in a much more socially responsible country. Clear-eyed analysis, clear lines of responsibility, and clear sanctions.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
No its because they had a more commercial free market solution. Instead of trying to save the banks and "save the world" like Brown tried, the banks were allowed to fail; those with guaranteed deposits were bailed out and those without guarantees were burnt.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
There is no way the government could have gone against the JCVI advice on 6 months. That is a purely medical thing, in the same way as having to wait for them to authorise the use of a vaccine. They probably could have said just to be safe a wider group can get a booster if they want.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
Will it now. Not watching BBC on principle. That's £175 down the drain. What are you watching atm? Looked at True Story which seems interesting.
Its not that I don't watch the BBC on principle, its that the BBC is mauve shit in general that's just not very good.
My favourite show at the moment is the Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. My favourite book series being brought to life in a way that I couldn't imagine the BBC even attempting.
Nor, from the reviews I've read, would they want to.
I left a review here the other day after watching the first four episodes. Given it a positive review.
Those who are expecting "tits and dragons" would be disappointed, but that's not what the story is.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
And this is because it had the sense to revert to a much more Scandinavian solution, in a much more socially responsible country. Clear-eyed analysis, clear lines of responsibility, and clear sanctions.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
No its because they had a more commercial free market solution. Instead of trying to save the banks and "save the world" like Brown tried, the banks were allowed to fail; those with guaranteed deposits were bailed out and those without guarantees were burnt.
Moral hazard was maintained.
Easier to do when (1) you don't have to worry about too big to fail, and (2) the bulk of those who are burned are foreigners.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
The old system would never have allowed RBS to operate at 70:1 leverage, the purchase of ABN Amro would simply have been blocked by the Bank of England. Northern Rock wouldn't have been able to operate at an almost infinite level of leverage as the Bank of England would have insisted on reserve capital. HBOS likewise.
Once again, it was the retail banks that completely fucked it in this country. The regulatory regime that took capital requirement monitoring away from the Bank of England was a gigantic disaster and that was completely and totally owned by Brown and opposed by the Tories.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
And this is because it had the sense to revert to a much more Scandinavian solution, in a much more socially responsible country. Clear-eyed analysis, clear lines of responsibility, and clear sanctions.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
No its because they had a more commercial free market solution. Instead of trying to save the banks and "save the world" like Brown tried, the banks were allowed to fail; those with guaranteed deposits were bailed out and those without guarantees were burnt.
Moral hazard was maintained.
Easier to do when (1) you don't have to worry about too big to fail, and (2) the bulk of those who are burned are foreigners.
(1) is backwards though. They'd gone so far past the point of being too big to fail, that they'd instead become too big to save.
(2) is politics and absolutely Brown put politics before economics.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
Got my second jab on the first available date. I commented at the time on the patchiness of it. It seems to be continuing. PS. I was 54, so in a lower cohort in June. Am booked for booster on December 8th. Again the first available date.
With respect to the mention of Godwin's Law on the previous thread, is there a split between scientists and non-scientists?
As a scientist I view Godwin's Law as analogous to Newton's. It's a description of what happens. A way to help understand the world around us. In this case that most arguments reduce down to a question of what is the dividing line between good and evil, and the Nazis stand as the most widely accepted exemplar of evil to be used in such an argument.
Non-scientists might think of Law as a codification of what is forbidden, and the punishments for transgression. They would then see Godwin's Law as a prohibition on the mention of the Nazis.
So you're trying to divide people between scientists and non-scientists? This populist, anti-intellectualism is exactly like Hitler.
I haven't reached the stage of telling the non-scientists that they're wrong, and exhorting my fellow scientists to reprogram the robots to hunt down non-scientists, but clearly I'm on the slippery slope..
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
There's been a massive rewriting of history by the left in this country, our crisis was born in the UK, the banks that failed were retail banks operating with little to no reserve capital and they were allowed to do so by the regulatory system cooked up by Brown.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
And this is because it had the sense to revert to a much more Scandinavian solution, in a much more socially responsible country. Clear-eyed analysis, clear lines of responsibility, and clear sanctions.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
No its because they had a more commercial free market solution. Instead of trying to save the banks and "save the world" like Brown tried, the banks were allowed to fail; those with guaranteed deposits were bailed out and those without guarantees were burnt.
Moral hazard was maintained.
Easier to do when (1) you don't have to worry about too big to fail, and (2) the bulk of those who are burned are foreigners.
Quite. And the banks were too big to fail and the entire global financial sector so outsize partly because the lines of social responsibility had long been cut by London and New York.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
There is no way the government could have gone against the JCVI advice on 6 months. That is a purely medical thing, in the same way as having to wait for them to authorise the use of a vaccine. They probably could have said just to be safe a wider group can get a booster if they want.
Yes. But that didn't mean they had to reduce the available capacity. A need to ramp up vaccination was always on the cards.
With respect to the mention of Godwin's Law on the previous thread, is there a split between scientists and non-scientists?
As a scientist I view Godwin's Law as analogous to Newton's. It's a description of what happens. A way to help understand the world around us. In this case that most arguments reduce down to a question of what is the dividing line between good and evil, and the Nazis stand as the most widely accepted exemplar of evil to be used in such an argument.
Non-scientists might think of Law as a codification of what is forbidden, and the punishments for transgression. They would then see Godwin's Law as a prohibition on the mention of the Nazis.
So you're trying to divide people between scientists and non-scientists? This populist, anti-intellectualism is exactly like Hitler.
I haven't reached the stage of telling the non-scientists that they're wrong, and exhorting my fellow scientists to reprogram the robots to hunt down non-scientists, but clearly I'm on the slippery slope..
{oh.... starts fiddling with the targeting code in the T800s}
So you are say that we *shouldn't* be hunting down the non-scientists?
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
And this is because it had the sense to revert to a much more Scandinavian solution, in a much more socially responsible country. Clear-eyed analysis, clear lines of responsibility, and clear sanctions.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
No its because they had a more commercial free market solution. Instead of trying to save the banks and "save the world" like Brown tried, the banks were allowed to fail; those with guaranteed deposits were bailed out and those without guarantees were burnt.
Moral hazard was maintained.
Easier to do when (1) you don't have to worry about too big to fail, and (2) the bulk of those who are burned are foreigners.
Quite. And the banks were too big to fail and the entire global financial sector so outsize partly because the lines of social responsibility had long been cut by London and New York.
Not that long, they were cut by Gordon Brown when against dire warnings he removed Bank of England oversight.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
There is no way the government could have gone against the JCVI advice on 6 months. That is a purely medical thing, in the same way as having to wait for them to authorise the use of a vaccine. They probably could have said just to be safe a wider group can get a booster if they want.
Yes. But that didn't mean they had to reduce the available capacity. A need to ramp up vaccination was always on the cards.
The problem is lots of those doing the jabbing were being taken away from other jobs. Lots of GP and nurses e.g. my parents GP was never available, because they were on the front line jabbing morning, noon and night.
There has already been a ramp up in vaccinations, but until a week ago, nobody thought they would be having to booster everybody and 4th jab a load of people in 8 weeks. There is having a bit of spare capacity and then there is just having loads of people just sitting around doing nothing.
The JCVI have been arguing since the summer that even 40-50 year olds getting a booster is self-indulgent luxury and kids don't need jabbing.
I think the presumption was if there was an expansion, it would be more of the same, 6 months after, now 30-40 years olds etc. I think everybody has been taken aback by JCVI switch yesterday to basically saying everybody needs another jab in the next 8 weeks.
It's been quite a good 'news' day today in terms of expert talking heads – even if we don't yet have hard data. Did you read the FT piece I posted earlier?
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
You were a Labour Spad? Remarkable journey you've had.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
Got my second jab on the first available date. I commented at the time on the patchiness of it. It seems to be continuing. PS. I was 54, so in a lower cohort in June. Am booked for booster on December 8th. Again the first available date.
My GP surgery banged out the initial vaccinations so quickly and I had a 3 week gap such that I was miles ahead and have booked my booster for tommorow through the national system quicker than my GP could book me for the booster.
I'll be 23rd April/14th May/1st Dec. I'm 40, just.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
Because of Topping's post that introduced [total] Balls to the conversation.
Burnham was such a flop in the 2015 Leadership Election garnering only 80,462 votes
Formidable Cooper got a stonking 71,928 votes showing how formidable she is.
I think a @Sunil_Prasannan or LibDem style bar chart is needed here.
She has high recognition, part of credentialising today's Labour Party, is not as far as anyone can make out an unreconstructed Trot, and is married to someone who distinguished himself on a popular TV variety show was arguably one of the more sensible politicians Labour has ever had.
So that is all in the plus column.
I bet you want Dan and Nadiya to win Strictly don't you.
I couldn't care less.
I have never watched Strictly. I couldn't tell you who the Strictly contestants are.
If you look up from typing on PB this Saturday around 7.30pm at the television (that box in the corner of the room that the other members of your family are looking at) then all will be revealed.
Oh so its a program on Netflix is it?
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
Will it now. Not watching BBC on principle. That's £175 down the drain. What are you watching atm? Looked at True Story which seems interesting.
Its not that I don't watch the BBC on principle, its that the BBC is mauve shit in general that's just not very good.
My favourite show at the moment is the Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. My favourite book series being brought to life in a way that I couldn't imagine the BBC even attempting.
Nor, from the reviews I've read, would they want to.
I left a review here the other day after watching the first four episodes. Given it a positive review.
Those who are expecting "tits and dragons" would be disappointed, but that's not what the story is.
First 3 episodes were a bit slow and disappointing for me. Episode 4 seemed to really get going.
They have made some changes from the book which I understand there must be a need to when making a TV programme. However some changes are there purely to adapt to modern sensibilities but don't always make sense. For example:
- The Dragon in the books was male-only. The only current users of the power were the female Aes Sedai. Male users of the power are hunted down and stopped. For the Dragon to be special and to make sense they needed to be male (in my view)
- The ethnicity of the Two Rivers is a very diverse mix in the TV programme. This is a community which has been more or less cut off from the outside world for many generations. Given this you would expect that they would all have a very similar ethnicity as breeding within the population would cause this. I don't really care what ethnicity but I would think they ought to be the same in that location. Other parts of the Wheel of Time world (in the books) have a very different cultural identity to the Two Rivers. I feel that making everywhere multi-ethnic may well take away from the impact when they go to other parts of the world in the future.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
There's been a massive rewriting of history by the left in this country, our crisis was born in the UK, the banks that failed were retail banks operating with little to no reserve capital and they were allowed to do so by the regulatory system cooked up by Brown.
But as mentioned, Thatcherites wanted to deregulate further. The prevailing direction of travel amongst Tory ideologues between 2000 and 2006 was that all areas of the British financial sector were still too "constricted". This has all hastily been forgotten and rewritten in itself, much like the uncomfortably widespread establishment supporters of fascism during the 1930s.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
They were introduced in ‘07 I think. Finally abolished by the incoming Coalition.
In short, Labour should be less Tory on the economy, especially and including the big banks who clearly cannot be trusted. I am glad we're making socialists out of the Tory Party at last
Yep. Labour should avoid Toryness if at all possible. It tends to end badly. Eg letting the City rip, dodgy off balance sheet financing with PFI, bellicose foreign policy leading to Iraq invasions, trying to confect markets & competition in sectors where provision rather than choice is key, being scared to raise headline taxes and so having to do fiddles (eg with current v capital account) and find complex stealthy alternatives to raise money, embracing austerity when it wasn't needed, and of course the absolute pits of the world, 'sticking to Tory spending plans' for 2 years, this leading to famine-then-feast lumpy inefficient spending instead of a nice smooth increase in much needed investment for our public services, wrecked by 2 decades of Tory neglect.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
Not taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England. Peter Lilley spoke about it at length and said it would end in the exact disaster that occurred, banks would overstretch their balance sheets and no one would notice.
People did notice, but they were told "this time it's different". As a rule of thumb whenever someone says "this time it's different" start RUNNING.
Indeed, the worst one was RBS operating at 70:1 leverage and instead of ringing alarm bells at No 10/11 they got a nice pat on the back from the two dickheads for beating Barclays to the purchase ABN Amro which required an absolutely gigantic premium.
This was in exactly in the era that our Brexiter hero, Daniel Hannan, and an influential voice in the party wrote an article suggesting that Britain should adopt an even lighter-touch "Icelandic" approach. A Tory administration in 2008 may very likely have meant even lighter regulation, and even greater collapse. These were originally Tory ideas, after all.
Iceland handled the financial crisis far, far, far better than the UK. Despite being proportionately more exposed.
Iceland saw a peak to trough drop in GDP of 15% vs less than 6% in the UK. Iceland's unemployment rate went from less than 2% to over 10%, the UK's from 5% to 8%. All three of Iceland's major banks defaulted and rescuing the financial sector added 20% of GDP to public debt. The cumulative cost of UK interventions was around 7% of GDP. Iceland's overall government debt to GDP ratio increased by 66 % points between 2007 and 2011 versus 39 % points in the UK. On any metric you care to look at, the financial crisis had a much bigger impact on Iceland than the UK. I'd be interested in understanding more about why you think they handled it better than we did.
It'll be interesting to see what price Lammy shortens to over time. In my view he certainly will shorten. Shadow Foreign Sec is a pretty straightforwards job.
I backed him in a fiver at 48/50 yday to be next leader. I think he should be around 25 now and expect him to shorten over time.
So that actually leaves us with the small but not negligible possibility that he really could be the next leader!
Who'd have imagined that a few years ago! (I quite like him but thought he was hopeless until quite recently. He's improved massively.)
Burnham's price looks increasingly Brian Rose, but yes I am talking my book.
Agree on Burnham (I originally typed Butnham), although he’s not as bad as Rose!!
Lammy? That’s a good price and probably a good trading bet. Would he win in this environment? Not sure, the culture wars are rapidly driving voting patterns and he has a few back quotes that would cause him issues.
We'll see anyway. Hardly the most exciting of betting thoughts, but rather look forwards to see how these matters evolve.
(Brian Rose was actually in the contest of course)
22 Tory MPs voted against Covid regulations for mask wearing - including Steve Baker, Graham Brady, Andrew Bridgen, Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Jackie Doyle-Price, Richard Drax, Mark Francois, Philip Holloone, Mark Jenkinson, Craig Mackinlay, Esther McVey, Charles Walker, https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1465716655670153216
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
There's been a massive rewriting of history by the left in this country, our crisis was born in the UK, the banks that failed were retail banks operating with little to no reserve capital and they were allowed to do so by the regulatory system cooked up by Brown.
But as mentioned, Thatcherites wanted to deregulate further. The prevailing direction of travel amongst Tory ideologues between 2000 and 2006 was that all areas of the British financial sector were still too "constricted". This has all hastily been forgotten and rewritten itself, much like the uncomfortably widespread Establishment supporters of fascism during the 1930s.
Now, now, you'll be Godwinned. Even if it is entirely valid and relevant.
It's been quite a good 'news' day today in terms of expert talking heads – even if we don't yet have hard data. Did you read the FT piece I posted earlier?
Behind the paywall - whats the summary?
I now can't get back in to get the details...! But essentially, very broadly, more expert talking heads thinking it might be mild(ish), and the R value is around the same as delta. The paywall is bloody annoying – I was able to access this morning but not this afternoon.
22 Tory MPs voted against Covid regulations for mask wearing - including Steve Baker, Graham Brady, Andrew Bridgen, Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Jackie Doyle-Price, Richard Drax, Mark Francois, Philip Holloone, Mark Jenkinson, Craig Mackinlay, Esther McVey, Charles Walker, https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1465716655670153216
That bunch are harder than the Crays and the Richardsons combined.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
The point is Yvette did not listen to advice and made the wrong decision
Maybe she will be different but I do think she is being overhyped
22 Tory MPs voted against Covid regulations for mask wearing - including Steve Baker, Graham Brady, Andrew Bridgen, Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Jackie Doyle-Price, Richard Drax, Mark Francois, Philip Holloone, Mark Jenkinson, Craig Mackinlay, Esther McVey, Charles Walker, https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1465716655670153216
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
The Keir Thangam boundary?
PS I did Greats, and I knew that with no googling.
With respect to the mention of Godwin's Law on the previous thread, is there a split between scientists and non-scientists?
As a scientist I view Godwin's Law as analogous to Newton's. It's a description of what happens. A way to help understand the world around us. In this case that most arguments reduce down to a question of what is the dividing line between good and evil, and the Nazis stand as the most widely accepted exemplar of evil to be used in such an argument.
Non-scientists might think of Law as a codification of what is forbidden, and the punishments for transgression. They would then see Godwin's Law as a prohibition on the mention of the Nazis.
So you're trying to divide people between scientists and non-scientists? This populist, anti-intellectualism is exactly like Hitler.
I haven't reached the stage of telling the non-scientists that they're wrong, and exhorting my fellow scientists to reprogram the robots to hunt down non-scientists, but clearly I'm on the slippery slope..
{oh.... starts fiddling with the targeting code in the T800s}
So you are say that we *shouldn't* be hunting down the non-scientists?
Those who deny that Die Hard is a Christmas Movie are a higher priority.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
How long was Thatcher blamed for stuff after she left office? I think we had an example of that only a few weeks ago, but she's been out of office for over thirty years.
Turning to GPs, she says the payment for standard vaccine delivery will increase to £15 a shot, while an additional £5 a shot will be offered for vaccines delivered on Sunday's and £30 for housebound vaccinations until the end of next month.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
The Keir Thangam boundary?
PS I did Greats, and I knew that with no googling.
Yes, but you are on PB and therefore Intelligent Life.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
You were a Labour Spad? Remarkable journey you've had.
No - I was appointed by my professional body, and at the request of the DCLG ( Yvette), to provide detailed analysis along with others on her proposals
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
That's fine Richard - but I would just like an example of better regulation the Tories proposed at the time.
There will be mention of a Peter Lilley speech to some dinner or other.
Yes. Because he nailed it. And the reason you know about it also is because you know he nailed it.
There's been a massive rewriting of history by the left in this country, our crisis was born in the UK, the banks that failed were retail banks operating with little to no reserve capital and they were allowed to do so by the regulatory system cooked up by Brown.
But as mentioned, Thatcherites wanted to deregulate further. The prevailing direction of travel amongst Tory ideologues between 2000 and 2006 was that all areas of the British financial sector were still too "constricted". This has all hastily been forgotten and rewritten in itself, much like the uncomfortably widespread establishment supporters of fascism during the 1930s.
What a load of crap. The specific regulatory failure in the UK was taking capital regulation away from the Bank of England and this was opposed by the Tory party. Fewer better regulations are fine, onerous box ticking from the FSA was a disaster. Everything else in the UK financial crisis was a side show compared to the FSA allowing retail banks to operate at a 0-1.5% capital ratio. As I said, there's been a rewriting of history in the UK, our financial crisis was completely different to what happened in the US which was another kind of oversight failure. In all three scenarios of RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock the BoE would have insisted on shareholder fundraising and holding at least 8% reserve capital, not 1.4%, 0.5% and 0.1% in each of those cases.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
The Keir Thangam boundary?
PS I did Greats, and I knew that with no googling.
Yes, but you are on PB and therefore Intelligent Life.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
How long was Thatcher blamed for stuff after she left office? I think we had an example of that only a few weeks ago, but she's been out of office for over thirty years.
Given her impact on UK politics, it's a lot more convincing than pearl-clutching over a minor change to property sales law 15 years ago.
I am not sure the press conference has added anything in terms of the roll out announced yesterday. It seems like very much still trying to plan it all out, nothing has changed in terms of those who has an appointment carry on, those that don't, wait to be contacted.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
The Keir Thangam boundary?
PS I did Greats, and I knew that with no googling.
Yes, but you are on PB and therefore Intelligent Life.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
How long was Thatcher blamed for stuff after she left office? I think we had an example of that only a few weeks ago, but she's been out of office for over thirty years.
Given her impact on UK politics, it's a lot more convincing than pearl-clutching over a minor change to property sales law 15 years ago.
A minor change? Perhaps appropriate to focus on given the level of the profile she has just taken on.
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
Got my second jab on the first available date. I commented at the time on the patchiness of it. It seems to be continuing. PS. I was 54, so in a lower cohort in June. Am booked for booster on December 8th. Again the first available date.
My GP surgery banged out the initial vaccinations so quickly and I had a 3 week gap such that I was miles ahead and have booked my booster for tommorow through the national system quicker than my GP could book me for the booster.
I'll be 23rd April/14th May/1st Dec. I'm 40, just.
You have a great GP. Mine hasn't vaccinated anyone. On the other hand we can get a same day appointment. So there is that.
I am not sure the press conference has added anything in terms of the roll out announced yesterday. It seems like very much still trying to plan it all out, nothing has changed in terms of those who has an appointment carry on, those that don't, wait to be contacted.
Huge plus for Boris - he didn't try out the Groucho glasses and Moustache he must have been planning.
Is there any particularly reason why, in a thread about Yvette Cooper, the PB Tories have started discussing her husband? I can only assume millions of posts about Hips are soon to be with us.
I have no idea why Ed Balls is referred too but HIPS was Yvette s failure and yes I was one of many involved in advising her and trying to ameliorate the damage but she did not listen and it failed
Hips were around in 2004.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
Doesn't matter. The Tories would blame the end-Permian event on SKS if they weren't mostly too ignorant to know what it was, having all been to Eton and Oxford to do an easy option such as Greats.
How long was Thatcher blamed for stuff after she left office? I think we had an example of that only a few weeks ago, but she's been out of office for over thirty years.
Only last month the head of Glasgow Council (a Nat no less) was still blaming Thatcher for Glasgow's ills.
I am not sure the press conference has added anything in terms of the roll out announced yesterday. It seems like very much still trying to plan it all out, nothing has changed in terms of those who has an appointment carry on, those that don't, wait to be contacted.
Agreed. Just much more of an upbeat tone – they seem fairly confident that the boosters are going to work against Omicron, even if they lack hard data.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
Peppa Pig super fan up in 20 mins to probably cause confusion over the exact details of the booster program, and to take 20 questions from the media about nativity plays and Christmas parties.
For the zillionth time (does this really need repeating??) more regulation is not synonymous with better regulation. It's one of the most bizarre features of people on the Left that they seem to be totally incapable of getting their heads around this simplest of propositions. And I think it's a genuine intellectual failure in them, not just the obvious one of seeking to excuse a Labour Chancellor for the catastrophic dog's breakfast he made of financial regulation.
Semi agreed. The regime put in place was rubbish and failed but there is no way on this earth that the old one, let alone any the Cons (who were fully signed up to 'light touch') would conceivably have implemented, could have headed off the crash of 08 or mitigated its impact on us to any significant degree.
There is "the crash of 08" with its attendant CDS and so forth, and there is the first bank panic in the UK for XX years with people queuing round the block to get their money out. The former of course not; the latter, perhaps.
The business model in question would need to have been prohibited in order to stop that. But the political culture of the time was 'these guys know what they're doing, leave them be, count the tax pounds'. Would this have been different with George Osborne or John McDonnell instead of Gordon Brown as Chancellor? (I now copy your last sentence).
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Ramp up capacity to previous levels. So why were they ramped down?
Because the JCVI initially said only oldies and after 6 months.
Advisers advise, ministers decide. Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments. Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
How come you had your 2nd jab so late? I had mine done in June and I am a lot younger than you.
Got my second jab on the first available date. I commented at the time on the patchiness of it. It seems to be continuing. PS. I was 54, so in a lower cohort in June. Am booked for booster on December 8th. Again the first available date.
My GP surgery banged out the initial vaccinations so quickly and I had a 3 week gap such that I was miles ahead and have booked my booster for tommorow through the national system quicker than my GP could book me for the booster.
I'll be 23rd April/14th May/1st Dec. I'm 40, just.
You have a great GP. Mine hasn't vaccinated anyone. On the other hand we can get a same day appointment. So there is that.
The first may well be the reason for the second...
Immunology question: what good is speeding up the boosters actually doing? Surely there must be a 'right' time to do the boosters, and if we give someone a booster only four months after his second jab, he still has substantial protection - and it is therefore a bit of a waste of a booster? Why is the current proposal better than the original timetable?
Trial and error at the moment. It could be that the optimum time for long-term protection is two, three, or even twelve months.
Comments
I presumed he was perhaps a somebody in a previous profession, who before COVID had gone into the pub trade, and hence why he had quite a big twitter following and got mentions.
That's what's typically on in a Saturday evening. The Football will have finished, so Netflix will be on typically by that time.
As a scientist I view Godwin's Law as analogous to Newton's. It's a description of what happens. A way to help understand the world around us. In this case that most arguments reduce down to a question of what is the dividing line between good and evil, and the Nazis stand as the most widely accepted exemplar of evil to be used in such an argument.
Non-scientists might think of Law as a codification of what is forbidden, and the punishments for transgression. They would then see Godwin's Law as a prohibition on the mention of the Nazis.
Economy, jobs fair enough.
Mental health expertise from a pub owner?
Give me a break. Utter wilful misinformative cant.
So why was it ramped down?
Yellow bar of data disappointment today. Last week was 42.5K cases so we are hoping for lower than that today.
My favourite show at the moment is the Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. My favourite book series being brought to life in a way that I couldn't imagine the BBC even attempting.
Also a lot of those doing the jabs earlier in the year were GPs and GP surgery nurses, so you were taking them away from their day job.
The nation then recovered in a broadly collective effort.
Meanwhile. As a 55 yo still can't get my booster earlier than 6 months. It's going to need some ramping up. Particularly as they are enforcing face-to-face GP appointments.
Of course the 400 military are the magic wand.
Moral hazard was maintained.
There is no way the government could have gone against the JCVI advice on 6 months. That is a purely medical thing, in the same way as having to wait for them to authorise the use of a vaccine. They probably could have said just to be safe a wider group can get a booster if they want.
That would make it immuno-compromised.
Those who are expecting "tits and dragons" would be disappointed, but that's not what the story is.
Once again, it was the retail banks that completely fucked it in this country. The regulatory regime that took capital requirement monitoring away from the Bank of England was a gigantic disaster and that was completely and totally owned by Brown and opposed by the Tories.
(2) is politics and absolutely Brown put politics before economics.
PS. I was 54, so in a lower cohort in June.
Am booked for booster on December 8th.
Again the first available date.
God knows they've got enough incentive (not financial obviously).
A need to ramp up vaccination was always on the cards.
So you are say that we *shouldn't* be hunting down the non-scientists?
There has already been a ramp up in vaccinations, but until a week ago, nobody thought they would be having to booster everybody and 4th jab a load of people in 8 weeks. There is having a bit of spare capacity and then there is just having loads of people just sitting around doing nothing.
The JCVI have been arguing since the summer that even 40-50 year olds getting a booster is self-indulgent luxury and kids don't need jabbing.
I think the presumption was if there was an expansion, it would be more of the same, 6 months after, now 30-40 years olds etc. I think everybody has been taken aback by JCVI switch yesterday to basically saying everybody needs another jab in the next 8 weeks.
Almost SEVENTEEN YEARS ago.
F.
F.
S.
I'll be 23rd April/14th May/1st Dec.
I'm 40, just.
They have made some changes from the book which I understand there must be a need to when making a TV programme. However some changes are there purely to adapt to modern sensibilities but don't always make sense. For example:
- The Dragon in the books was male-only. The only current users of the power were the female Aes Sedai. Male users of the power are hunted down and stopped. For the Dragon to be special and to make sense they needed to be male (in my view)
- The ethnicity of the Two Rivers is a very diverse mix in the TV programme. This is a community which has been more or less cut off from the outside world for many generations. Given this you would expect that they would all have a very similar ethnicity as breeding within the population would cause this. I don't really care what ethnicity but I would think they ought to be the same in that location. Other parts of the Wheel of Time world (in the books) have a very different cultural identity to the Two Rivers. I feel that making everywhere multi-ethnic may well take away from the impact when they go to other parts of the world in the future.
(Brian Rose was actually in the contest of course)
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1465716655670153216
Maybe she will be different but I do think she is being overhyped
PS I did Greats, and I knew that with no googling.
ETA wrong extinction event, mind
chaaaaa-cccching.....
We don't know you moron FFS!!! ought to be the reply.
I'd vote for the one who said that.
On the other hand we can get a same day appointment. So there is that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/25/cop26-delusional-snp-council-leader-blames-margaret-thatcher/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Night_Garden...
Ninky Noo; Iggle Piggle; Pontipine; Tombliboo; Makka Pakka; the Wottingers...
The CBI would probably have voluntarily disbanded by now.
Johnson has turned to jelly after her question.
PM: "we haven't ruled out anything... but another lockdown of the kind we've seen before is extremely unlikely"
• Carry on with Christmas parties
• No need for WFH recommendation
• Lockdowns extremely unlikely
Doesn't sound like a government that is shitting itself, I must say.