Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
Issue is always the untrained fools who go out unprepared in the wrong clothing. Hint carry a OS map because phones have a habit of not helping at just the wrong moment.
Mrs Eek particular remembers scrambling up a hill in the Lakes this summer to be greeted by a Japanese tourist in a pristine white summer dress (it was about to rain) and slip on sandals.
I once overheard a group of mountain rescuers in a bar, after picking up one of the aforementioned tourists who would otherwise have spend the night on the mountain.
To say they were less than complementary about some of the idiots who call on their services, would be something of an understatement!
They always go when the call comes in though.
The issue is they never know if it's a grade A idiot who went unprepared or a mate who has just had a lot of bad luck.
The best approach if it became necessary is as @Ishmael_Z points out to bill those people who don't subscribe to an organisation - having a fee that is removed by joining an organisation may be enough to encourage people to both join the organisation and to spend 30 seconds getting organised before they went walking.
In foreign parts you are expected to have insurance. If you go climbing in the Alps they'll whip you off the Grand Jorasses with their fancy helicopter and send you the bill.
The BMC (not ClimbUK as they rather stupidly tried to become) and the MCoS (who did register as ClimbScotland) would probably be the organisations to deal with this, provided their internal politics don't cause them to blow up.
But it would never fly, really. How do you draw the line between a risky activity that needs insurance, and one that doesn't? Walking through a field of cows can be quite edgy sometimes.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
Issue is always the untrained fools who go out unprepared in the wrong clothing. Hint carry a OS map because phones have a habit of not helping at just the wrong moment.
Mrs Eek particular remembers scrambling up a hill in the Lakes this summer to be greeted by a Japanese tourist in a pristine white summer dress (it was about to rain) and slip on sandals.
I once overheard a group of mountain rescuers in a bar, after picking up one of the aforementioned tourists who would otherwise have spend the night on the mountain.
To say they were less than complementary about some of the idiots who call on their services, would be something of an understatement!
They always go when the call comes in though.
As with lifeboat crews. All volunteers, too, like the mountain rescue teams.
President Vladimir Putin said that Russia had no room to retreat in a standoff with the United States over Ukraine and would be forced into a tough response unless the West dropped its ‘aggressive line’ https://reut.rs/3Ewglnz
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Ms Riddoch is an independent independista (so to speak) not SNP AFAIK.
This permits stuff - are you thinking of the camping overnight issue esp in Lomondside? Litter, mess, crowding, etc.? That's different from breaking a leg on the high tops and having to be rescued.
No, I just remember an article someone wrote after a number of mountain rescues.
Thanks - haven't come across such a proposal myself, so I was wondering.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is what I was talking about. Evidence Omicron is milder has been available for some time. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, or anything like it. But if officials showed a willingness to acknowledge good news a bit sooner it would help build confidence in their analysis.
But didn't Saint Nicola of Holyrood yesterday poo-poo the idea that there was any evidence Omicron was milder ?
I think there is still debate about why omicron is presenting as milder. Is it due to our exrptensive immunity? Is it intrinsically milder? Both? I think it is both, but that’s not definitive yet. However it is the outcome in the U.K. population that counts.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
Sorry I can't agree with that. Mrs Eek eats way less than me, does more way exercise and still puts on weight.
The difference is I'm always warmer than her so my body seems to burn things away while Mrs Eek's body simply doesn't.
When you start looking into things it's remarkable how little we still know about how the human body works in large numbers of areas.
I think it is calories in/calories out, tbh. I'm sure there is some stuff going on at the margin , and some people have genuine medical issues (thyroids).
There is far too much fat delusion online, silly diets and "genetics". Just start calorie counting.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
Yes and yes. But that's not all.
I think from my knowledge of Russia - which isn't complete, so I could easily be wrong - would say they're suspicious of NATO less because they think it will invade than because it gives help and support to countries they think of as either being hostile to them and their interests (e.g. intervening in Kosovo) or makes it more difficult to take back countries they regard as inalienably Russian that have somehow gone off track (Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia). Especially Ukraine. Remember Russia grew out of a state based on Kiev.
That's why they're so aggressive. They are paranoid not about direct invasion but about being made smaller and weaker so they can be dominated by others when they think given their size and resources they should be doing the dominating.
That article @IanB2 linked to is interesting on this point given the propaganda being forced on Russian children (especially) seems designed to reinforce this worldview.
Good post; old memories die hard, especially when they are reinforced by national myths. Populations and 'nations' have swirled and swayed across what we know today as 'Russia'. Niggle though; not sure Georgia should be included.
And it's not just myths - after all, given the way the Ukrainians had suffered at the hands of the Soviets, there were many of them who, initially at least, welcomed the Germans as potential liberators and there was some German awareness of the opportunity to harness Ukraine and Ukrainians on their side, made futile given the appalling way that its population came to be treated under the Nazis. The US seeking to 'recruit' Ukraine into NATO plays most directly into those memories.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
Issue is always the untrained fools who go out unprepared in the wrong clothing. Hint carry a OS map because phones have a habit of not helping at just the wrong moment.
Mrs Eek particular remembers scrambling up a hill in the Lakes this summer to be greeted by a Japanese tourist in a pristine white summer dress (it was about to rain) and slip on sandals.
I once overheard a group of mountain rescuers in a bar, after picking up one of the aforementioned tourists who would otherwise have spend the night on the mountain.
To say they were less than complementary about some of the idiots who call on their services, would be something of an understatement!
They always go when the call comes in though.
As with lifeboat crews. All volunteers, too, like the mountain rescue teams.
Small donation just sent to them (that time of year).
Well done!
I was just having a similar thought - there will be many of us who have run a surplus this year, with all that’s gone on. Christmas is a good time to think of charities, and of giving something back to the community where we can.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is what I was talking about. Evidence Omicron is milder has been available for some time. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, or anything like it. But if officials showed a willingness to acknowledge good news a bit sooner it would help build confidence in their analysis.
But didn't Saint Nicola of Holyrood yesterday poo-poo the idea that there was any evidence Omicron was milder ?
I think there is still debate about why omicron is presenting as milder. Is it due to our exrptensive immunity? Is it intrinsically milder? Both? I think it is both, but that’s not definitive yet. However it is the outcome in the U.K. population that counts.
Viruses don't particularly care about how mild or not they are. It's the transmisibility that counts, delta did the trick of being both more severe and more transmissible - so the world was a bit unlucky. It looks like Omicron may have done the opposite with it's transmissibility advantage though. The mutation may well be a net positive for the world.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
I once read a book - possibly by Robert Service, but I can't be sure - that suggested a big mistake was made in not inviting Russia under Yeltsin to apply for NATO and EU membership.
He thought it would have been at least explored and done a lot to defuse the more recent tensions over both of them even if ultimately the membership hadn't been taken up.
It would also have bolstered the Russian economy and strengthened its democratic elements, which as we have seen recently were very weak.
Incidentally I just watched an interview with Robert Service and Peter Hitchens about living in Russia in 1973 and 1990/91 respectively on the Spectator's YouTube channel.
Replanted 17 saplings that had been pulled up out of a tiny forest recently planted nearby. I know people get bored, but why would you pull saplings up? Why try to wreck the best thing that anyone's tried to do in the area for years?
I am wary of trusting the MSM, for whom Boris Johnson is manna from heaven. He is the ultimate box office politician, the source of a billion clicks and I sense they do not want to let him go under any circumstances.
The very last thing they want is some highly capable but slightly boring managerial type, quietly getting on with governing Britain well.
Who was the last PM that fit that description though?
Good question. Plenty of boring managerial types in my lifetime - Callaghan, Major, Brown, May, but none of them quietly governed well. Cameron probably comes closest (certainly fits the classic managerial type) but blows it after the coalition ended. So I think we have to go all the way back to Attlee.
In fact, who even governed well? Blair? Was competent until he became too messianic and it's difficult to ignore Iraq, but overall I think qualifies, If anything was too timid especially early on. Thatcher is interesting, certainly she made the changes she wanted to make in her first 2 terms, taking the politics out of it a lot of the governing was competent. But I can't quite detach myself from the view I had from being in the north for the second half of her term that overall it was extremely harmful for the country, and in some ways the north is still yet to recover.
But then even the Attlee's government had run out of steam by 1950. Baldwin 1935-7?
I think Russia is going to become a very difficult place to govern in the next few years, especially if Putin tries something in Ukraine.
A pincer movement of declining population and the loss of hydrocarbons revenue as the world pivots towards net zero is pretty hard to resist. Add in another expensive frozen conflict and the coffers will empty fast while everyone’s standard of living shrinks.
I expect Putin will keep going until death or infirmity, but he’s no spring chicken so sooner or later there is going to be the après Putin deluge.
Meanwhile Ukraine is equally or more up the creek economically.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
The obese already pay significant taxes.
There's no VAT on healthy foods, there is VAT on lots of unhealthy snacks. Plus there's VAT on restaurants and takeaways too.
Anyone who's going home and cooking their own meal never pays VAT on their meal. Anyone who's going out for McDonalds etc there's 20% on that going straight to HMRC.
EDIT: And if they're having a sugary drink, there's now a tax on that too. Plus like with petrol, there's VAT on top of the tax!!
It is possible to get fat on untaxed foodstuffs.
So those who get fat on untaxed foods and are treated for health conditions are taking a free ride on the others. As with the unvaxxed.
And you would make a pretty bad libertarian if you proposed going through people's grocery bills to determine if they are eligible for free healthcare.
Possible but quite improbable. Its also possible someone smokes entirely from imported, untaxed cigarettes. Or drinks entirely from imported, untaxed alcohol.
Taxing externalities doesn't have to be absolutely perfect. Its just like Joe Biden: Acceptable under the circumstances.
You have no evidence to support your assertion. It just fits your narrative. But a quick glance at the (size of the) tax code shows you can't tax people on gut feel.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
Sorry I can't agree with that. Mrs Eek eats way less than me, does more way exercise and still puts on weight.
The difference is I'm always warmer than her so my body seems to burn things away while Mrs Eek's body simply doesn't.
When you start looking into things it's remarkable how little we still know about how the human body works in large numbers of areas.
I think it is calories in/calories out, tbh. I'm sure there is some stuff going on at the margin , and some people have genuine medical issues (thyroids).
There is far too much fat delusion online, silly diets and "genetics". Just start calorie counting.
What part of the above means you assume we don't count calories?
Yes it's a complete anecdote but I can eat 500 extra calories a day (say a chocolate bar or pudding) and Mrs Eek will continue to put weight on while I stay the same.
As I said there is a whole lot of human biology we don't 100% understand - sleeping and human metabolism are 2 such items. And anyone who claims to have the answer at best only has a short term solution.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
Yes and yes. But that's not all.
I think from my knowledge of Russia - which isn't complete, so I could easily be wrong - would say they're suspicious of NATO less because they think it will invade than because it gives help and support to countries they think of as either being hostile to them and their interests (e.g. intervening in Kosovo) or makes it more difficult to take back countries they regard as inalienably Russian that have somehow gone off track (Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia). Especially Ukraine. Remember Russia grew out of a state based on Kiev.
That's why they're so aggressive. They are paranoid not about direct invasion but about being made smaller and weaker so they can be dominated by others when they think given their size and resources they should be doing the dominating.
That article @IanB2 linked to is interesting on this point given the propaganda being forced on Russian children (especially) seems designed to reinforce this worldview.
Good post; old memories die hard, especially when they are reinforced by national myths. Populations and 'nations' have swirled and swayed across what we know today as 'Russia'. Niggle though; not sure Georgia should be included.
They want Stalin!
IIRC Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, also known later as 'Stalin' wasn't particular bothered about his Georgian 'nationality'. And today's Georgians are split, many of them regarding him s 'history's most famous Georgian'.
I am wary of trusting the MSM, for whom Boris Johnson is manna from heaven. He is the ultimate box office politician, the source of a billion clicks and I sense they do not want to let him go under any circumstances.
The very last thing they want is some highly capable but slightly boring managerial type, quietly getting on with governing Britain well.
Who was the last PM that fit that description though?
Good question. Plenty of boring managerial types in my lifetime - Callaghan, Major, Brown, May, but none of them quietly governed well. Cameron probably comes closest (certainly fits the classic managerial type) but blows it after the coalition ended. So I think we have to go all the way back to Attlee.
In fact, who even governed well? Blair? Was competent until he became too messianic and it's difficult to ignore Iraq, but overall I think qualifies, If anything was too timid especially early on. Thatcher is interesting, certainly she made the changes she wanted to make in her first 2 terms, taking the politics out of it a lot of the governing was competent. But I can't quite detach myself from the view I had from being in the north for the second half of her term that overall it was extremely harmful for the country, and in some ways the north is still yet to recover.
But then even the Attlee's government had run out of steam by 1950. Baldwin 1935-7?
I think the main issue is that quiet managerial types are unlikely to become political party leaders, which is a pre-requisite for becoming PM.
I am wary of trusting the MSM, for whom Boris Johnson is manna from heaven. He is the ultimate box office politician, the source of a billion clicks and I sense they do not want to let him go under any circumstances.
The very last thing they want is some highly capable but slightly boring managerial type, quietly getting on with governing Britain well.
Who was the last PM that fit that description though?
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
Sorry I can't agree with that. Mrs Eek eats way less than me, does more way exercise and still puts on weight.
The difference is I'm always warmer than her so my body seems to burn things away while Mrs Eek's body simply doesn't.
When you start looking into things it's remarkable how little we still know about how the human body works in large numbers of areas.
I think it is calories in/calories out, tbh. I'm sure there is some stuff going on at the margin , and some people have genuine medical issues (thyroids).
There is far too much fat delusion online, silly diets and "genetics". Just start calorie counting.
What part of the above means you assume we don't count calories?
General comment. I like the cold/hot idea though, always wondered how many I'm burning when I'm frozen atop a mountain.
I am wary of trusting the MSM, for whom Boris Johnson is manna from heaven. He is the ultimate box office politician, the source of a billion clicks and I sense they do not want to let him go under any circumstances.
The very last thing they want is some highly capable but slightly boring managerial type, quietly getting on with governing Britain well.
Who was the last PM that fit that description though?
John Major.
Not exactly a positive advertisement for that style of PM then!
You seem remarkably angry at people who came up with a plan that worked. What date would you have deemed it “safe” for schools to reopen?
Yes, I am angry that I was forced to go back on a particular date for the convenience of a bunch of civil servants in zoom calls and work under impossible restrictions that made me extremely ill to the extent I couldn't walk and required hospital treatment to suit the convenience of a bunch of thick, posh, lazy, smug civil servants on nice safe zoom calls. Funny that. Can't think why I react that way to them. Or to their fellow travellers.
As to your second point, you're missing the thrust of what I'm saying, I'm not sure whether wilfully or out of obtuseness. You can't set arbitrary dates for weeks into the future into a fast moving infectious disease pandemic and just follow them because you should be assessing the situation. Just as, this week, we shouldn't be having reports of 'we'll have more restrictions on the 28th' because that's not how this disease will work.
What should have been done is a weekly meeting on a Monday, starting that first Monday, to see if there was a possibility schools could be reopened probably not the following week but the week after that. And that should have taken into account the prevalence of the disease, the level of vaccination, the strain on hospitals and (one thing you've forgotten) the availability of staff, given that there were a high number of vulnerable people still required to shield. (Continued)
Continued) Instead, let me run you through what happened.
In early December, schools and LEAs that had made the decision to switch to remote learning for the final week before Christmas were threatened with unlawful legal action by the DfE to reverse that decision - and were thus forced to reverse it because due to the expense of Covid they had no money to contest it.
We were told, in the final week, that there would be mass testing in the new term. Hopefully, if we got the kits in time. Which we might or might not.
During the holidays, we were told there would be a staggered return to school, with some groups not back in for two weeks, which we would have to teach remotely.
On the first day of the new term, schools had to be closed due to soaring case numbers.
Two weeks later, the Times reports they will be reopened on March 8th.
In mid-February, Gavin Williamson deigns to mention this in the House of Commons, neglecting the fairly important detail that due to running a bizarre and convoluted testing regime - for which school staff have to be used, without extra pay and without any training - some students won't be back before March 22nd.
When they go back, they have to wear face masks, which are not provided, nor are extra resources for purchasing hand sanitizer, and the bubble system is strengthened.
These measures effectively continue until the May half term, by which time cases are rising again.
Now, do you honestly think this shows people matching their actions to events? Or taking into account the science? Or acting in the best interests of children? Because it really doesn't look that way to me. As I say, we got lucky with March 8th but that is a coincidence. It was just one of a series of arbitrary and reckless decisions made by a group who were adamant to keep schools open by whatever means they could - even illegal methods - whatever the damage it did.
If you think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you. If you offer me enough to retire that would be great.
If you don't agree, feel free to keep arguing with the facts, but they won't change just because you wish them to, but I have better things to do with my time.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
The obese already pay significant taxes.
There's no VAT on healthy foods, there is VAT on lots of unhealthy snacks. Plus there's VAT on restaurants and takeaways too.
Anyone who's going home and cooking their own meal never pays VAT on their meal. Anyone who's going out for McDonalds etc there's 20% on that going straight to HMRC.
EDIT: And if they're having a sugary drink, there's now a tax on that too. Plus like with petrol, there's VAT on top of the tax!!
It is possible to get fat on untaxed foodstuffs.
So those who get fat on untaxed foods and are treated for health conditions are taking a free ride on the others. As with the unvaxxed.
And you would make a pretty bad libertarian if you proposed going through people's grocery bills to determine if they are eligible for free healthcare.
Possible but quite improbable. Its also possible someone smokes entirely from imported, untaxed cigarettes. Or drinks entirely from imported, untaxed alcohol.
Taxing externalities doesn't have to be absolutely perfect. Its just like Joe Biden: Acceptable under the circumstances.
You have no evidence to support your assertion. It just fits your narrative. But a quick glance at the (size of the) tax code shows you can't tax people on gut feel.
Actually the size of the tax code says that's exactly what people do, so long as Parliament approves it.
Parliament gives exemptions it wants to, and taxes what it wants to. If the tax code was 'clean' it would be a hell of a lot simpler.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is what I was talking about. Evidence Omicron is milder has been available for some time. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, or anything like it. But if officials showed a willingness to acknowledge good news a bit sooner it would help build confidence in their analysis.
But didn't Saint Nicola of Holyrood yesterday poo-poo the idea that there was any evidence Omicron was milder ?
I think there is still debate about why omicron is presenting as milder. Is it due to our exrptensive immunity? Is it intrinsically milder? Both? I think it is both, but that’s not definitive yet. However it is the outcome in the U.K. population that counts.
I thought it is already known that omicron doesn't go straight to the lungs, like earlier variants, but hangs around in the throat - making it less life-threatening and presumably more transmissable?
The only way for Boris to recover given recent stories is effectively to return to being fun times Boris and keep as much open as possible and refuse to impose another lockdown. He simply does not have any authority left to impose severe restrictions again now so may as well focus on resisting SAGE demands to lockdown, which will go down well with his base while encouraging everyone to get their boosters which is still the best way of reducing hospitalisations anyway
He will do that, yes, and it might help, But what he really needs to do if he wants to stay in place and lead into the next election, have a crack at a long premiership rather than a short one ending in ignominy, is to prennez un grip and deliver a sustained period of quiet competent government. I doubt he's capable of it, certainly the evidence isn't there, but perhaps he will surprise. It's all on the line now and he surely knows this. He must treat 1st Jan 22 as day 1 of a new administration led by a new Boris Johnson. A Boris Johnson worthy of his position. A Boris Johnson we can all be proud of, whatever our politics.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
On Alison Pearson and lockdown from the 28th according to the supermarkets.
I have heard similar third hand from a senior civil servant.
Which if true, given the way Cabinet played out and the views of backbenchers, does make me wonder just what the feck happened to our democracy.
I don’t believe that Sainsbury’s and Asda are considered to be more leak proof than the government. You tell them to prepare, to prepare they have to tell everyone in their supply chain, which is a hell of a lot of people, so you may as well announce it. These “hospitals/supermarkets/civil servants have been told…” stories just don’t make sense. Yeah, I think new restrictions next week are likely, but the idea that they’ve been trailed to an enormous part of the retail sector before everyone else, all of whom keep quiet about it, beggars belief.
With supermarkets in particular, there'd be a whole lot of relatively junior people who would need to be told. Ain't no way they are keeping quiet.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is what I was talking about. Evidence Omicron is milder has been available for some time. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, or anything like it. But if officials showed a willingness to acknowledge good news a bit sooner it would help build confidence in their analysis.
But didn't Saint Nicola of Holyrood yesterday poo-poo the idea that there was any evidence Omicron was milder ?
I think there is still debate about why omicron is presenting as milder. Is it due to our exrptensive immunity? Is it intrinsically milder? Both? I think it is both, but that’s not definitive yet. However it is the outcome in the U.K. population that counts.
Viruses don't particularly care about how mild or not they are. It's the transmisibility that counts, delta did the trick of being both more severe and more transmissible - so the world was a bit unlucky. It looks like Omicron may have done the opposite with it's transmissibility advantage though. The mutation may well be a net positive for the world.
Well they don't actually care, but those viruses which are mild gain an inherent advantage over those that are severe - people who are mildly ill don't take themselves out of society. Thus, mild viruses are more successful and usually drive out severe ones.
I think Russia is going to become a very difficult place to govern in the next few years, especially if Putin tries something in Ukraine.
A pincer movement of declining population and the loss of hydrocarbons revenue as the world pivots towards net zero is pretty hard to resist. Add in another expensive frozen conflict and the coffers will empty fast while everyone’s standard of living shrinks.
I expect Putin will keep going until death or infirmity, but he’s no spring chicken so sooner or later there is going to be the après Putin deluge.
Meanwhile Ukraine is equally or more up the creek economically.
Laurence Smith's 'world in 2050' prognosis was the complete opposite; he points to the huge untapped resources Russia has under Siberia and the progressive advantage living in northern climes will have under climate change, plus some other geo-political factors I can't remember, to paint a positive picture. Here's the summary from Amazon:
The New North is a book that turns the world literally upside down. Analysing four key 'megatrends' - population growth and migration, natural resource demand, climate change and globalisation - UCLA professor Larry Smith projects a world that by mid-century will have shifted its political and economic axes radically to the north. The beneficiaries of this new order, based on a bonanza of oil, natural gas, minerals and plentiful water will be the Arctic regions of Russia, Alaska and Canada, and Scandinavia. Meanwhile countries closer to the equator will face water shortages, aging populations, crowded megacities and coastal flooding. Smith draws on geography, economics, history, earth and climate science, but what makes his arguments so compelling is that he has spent many months exploring the region, talking to people in once-inaccessible Arctic towns, noting their economies, politics and stories.
UK government has purchased 1.75 million additional courses of Merck's Molnupiravir (Lagevrio) pill and 2.5 million additional courses of PF-07321332/ritonavir (Paxlovid) from Pfizer.
Lagevrio has been approved by MHRA, Paxlovid still awaiting approval
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is what I was talking about. Evidence Omicron is milder has been available for some time. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, or anything like it. But if officials showed a willingness to acknowledge good news a bit sooner it would help build confidence in their analysis.
But didn't Saint Nicola of Holyrood yesterday poo-poo the idea that there was any evidence Omicron was milder ?
I think there is still debate about why omicron is presenting as milder. Is it due to our exrptensive immunity? Is it intrinsically milder? Both? I think it is both, but that’s not definitive yet. However it is the outcome in the U.K. population that counts.
I thought it is already known that omicron doesn't go straight to the lungs, like earlier variants, but hangs around in the throat - making it less life-threatening and presumably more transmissable?
Yes that has come out, and is a possible mechanism for how omicron may be less severe. Lots more data needed alas, which is why the government is in the pickle it is.
I am wary of trusting the MSM, for whom Boris Johnson is manna from heaven. He is the ultimate box office politician, the source of a billion clicks and I sense they do not want to let him go under any circumstances.
The very last thing they want is some highly capable but slightly boring managerial type, quietly getting on with governing Britain well.
Who was the last PM that fit that description though?
Good question. Plenty of boring managerial types in my lifetime - Callaghan, Major, Brown, May, but none of them quietly governed well. Cameron probably comes closest (certainly fits the classic managerial type) but blows it after the coalition ended. So I think we have to go all the way back to Attlee.
In fact, who even governed well? Blair? Was competent until he became too messianic and it's difficult to ignore Iraq, but overall I think qualifies, If anything was too timid especially early on. Thatcher is interesting, certainly she made the changes she wanted to make in her first 2 terms, taking the politics out of it a lot of the governing was competent. But I can't quite detach myself from the view I had from being in the north for the second half of her term that overall it was extremely harmful for the country, and in some ways the north is still yet to recover.
But then even the Attlee's government had run out of steam by 1950. Baldwin 1935-7?
I think the main issue is that quiet managerial types are unlikely to become political party leaders, which is a pre-requisite for becoming PM.
I don't know, more seem boring rather than flamboyant. I think though there is a tendency to alternate. A party loses power, needs somebody with some sparkle to cut through in Opposition (Thatcher, Blair, Cameron maybe). They duly win power, eventually it all goes wrong and there is a feeling that somebody more serious and solid is needed to turn it round. So the boring managerial types start off with everything already in a mess (Callaghan, Major, Brown, May) and never recover and lose the next election. Repeat. Johnson broke the pattern by party, by effectively running as his own opposition.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
The next betting discussion must surely be to guess the date of the first (reputable national) poll with a Tory lead?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
The obese already pay significant taxes.
There's no VAT on healthy foods, there is VAT on lots of unhealthy snacks. Plus there's VAT on restaurants and takeaways too.
Anyone who's going home and cooking their own meal never pays VAT on their meal. Anyone who's going out for McDonalds etc there's 20% on that going straight to HMRC.
EDIT: And if they're having a sugary drink, there's now a tax on that too. Plus like with petrol, there's VAT on top of the tax!!
It is possible to get fat on untaxed foodstuffs.
So those who get fat on untaxed foods and are treated for health conditions are taking a free ride on the others. As with the unvaxxed.
And you would make a pretty bad libertarian if you proposed going through people's grocery bills to determine if they are eligible for free healthcare.
Possible but quite improbable. Its also possible someone smokes entirely from imported, untaxed cigarettes. Or drinks entirely from imported, untaxed alcohol.
Taxing externalities doesn't have to be absolutely perfect. Its just like Joe Biden: Acceptable under the circumstances.
You have no evidence to support your assertion. It just fits your narrative. But a quick glance at the (size of the) tax code shows you can't tax people on gut feel.
Actually the size of the tax code says that's exactly what people do, so long as Parliament approves it.
Parliament gives exemptions it wants to, and taxes what it wants to. If the tax code was 'clean' it would be a hell of a lot simpler.
I don't know whether the tax code is large because HMT are continually chasing after new ways found to dodge tax, or are purposefully creating ways for the favoured few to dodge tax, or because the politicians can't resist fiddling and try to do as much as possible while having it cost as little as possible. Probably all three.
I like Bartholomew as a name. Good choice. My music teacher was called Bartholomew. Now there was a frustrated soul.
I'd advise extreme caution over case numbers in the upcoming fortnight, like the bins there's a massive Christmas effect
Last year those numbers would have come from PCR tests.
This year we have many millions obsessing about their LFTs.
Another thing which is different is that on 04/01/21 when the last lockdown was announced there were over 30k in hospital with covid compared with under 8k now.
They'd also managed about 1m vaccinations compared with 130m now.
While I appreciate that the numbers will drop off towards the end of the week, I just can't see how boostering on average > 1 % of the population a day for the last week and half, with total booster numbers ten times larger than the reported infections, won't have a significant positive effect.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
I have asked Mrs Sandpit to take a read through that NY Times article, let’s see what she has to say. She’s an ethnically-Russian Ukranian, who grew up a little West of Kiev.
She’s previously been of the opinion that Russia needs a strong leader, because the country would quickly fall apart without it, and also sees that the state of Ukraine came from lines on a cartographer’s map rather than a cohesive demos of people. She definitely recognises the need for Putin to manufacture an international crisis in order to distract from a domestic one.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
The next betting discussion must surely be to guess the date of the first (reputable national) poll with a Tory lead?
Or we could open a book on when our 'new' poster (welcome, Bartholomew) reaches 1,000 posts. Nearest wins. I reckon 11.47am, 30/12/21.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
The next betting discussion must surely be to guess the date of the first (reputable national) poll with a Tory lead?
I’ve just been given my “third dose” rather than my “booster” which means if we have vax passports I need to wait another 90 days at least to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
It's pretty confusing. Russia has Ukrainian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Russian. I think there were a lot of the third group in the Crimea, but rather more of the second in the Donbass. I think.
I’ve just been given my “third dose” rather than my “booster” which means if we have vax passports I need to wait another 90 days at least to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
I think you still count if you aren't eligible for a booster yet.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 11m All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout. Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k. This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
One thing to look at is the number of Tory 2019 voters who switch directly to Labour compared to those who say "don't know".
At the moment most are "don't know" and this is one reason why the polling shares for all opposition parties are rising at the same time - even with the same number of poll respondents saying they support x, it's now a larger proportion of a smaller base.
If that pattern changes then it would be a sign that the electorate has decided they will "vote Labour to kick the Tories out". At the moment the mood is more like "the Tories are w**kers, but who else is there?" That's much easier to be coaxed back into the Tory voting column.
It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
Imagine how England (like Russia, a similarly dehorned superpower unable to move past WW2) would feel if France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway all joined the EEU and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
Putin is trying to force an escalation over Ukraine so that he can offer deescalation to get concessions. What has has going for him is that Russia has an enormous political capacity to take casualties where NATO and the EU have none.
Ben "Swain" Wallace has recently confirmed that there will be no UK military response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thanks for clearing that up for us, YOU BALD TWAT, I thought we'd be well up for a massive tank battle under a hail of chemical weapons and tac nukes in the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket.
I’ve just been given my “third dose” rather than my “booster” which means if we have vax passports I need to wait another 90 days at least to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 11m All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout. Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k. This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
No good deed goes unpunished. If the announcement had been £5bn or £10bn, it still wouldn’t have been enough.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
Imagine how England (like Russia, a similarly dehorned superpower unable to move past WW2) would feel if France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway all joined the EEU and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
Putin is trying to force an escalation over Ukraine so that he can offer deescalation to get concessions. What has has going for him is that Russia has an enormous political capacity to take casualties where NATO and the EU have none.
Ben "Swain" Wallace has recently confirmed that there will be no UK military response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thanks for clearing that up for us, YOU BALD TWAT, I thought we'd be well up for a massive tank battle under a hail of chemical weapons and tac nukes in the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket.
Surely we should be lying about our possible response.
Agree with the poster who said the media in general and in particular the national press and the BBC( excepting only the Telegraph) have had a truly dreadful crisis. The tendency to focus on worst case scenarios at all times has destroyed their credibility.
Have you read the Telegraph in the last year? I'd say they're at least the worst of the broadsheets and never forget they are the progenitor and promoter of the most devious and dangerous Prime Minister in living memory
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
I agree in principle.
Let them come for the obese first.
Sorry I can't agree with that. Mrs Eek eats way less than me, does more way exercise and still puts on weight.
The difference is I'm always warmer than her so my body seems to burn things away while Mrs Eek's body simply doesn't.
When you start looking into things it's remarkable how little we still know about how the human body works in large numbers of areas.
I think it is calories in/calories out, tbh. I'm sure there is some stuff going on at the margin , and some people have genuine medical issues (thyroids).
There is far too much fat delusion online, silly diets and "genetics". Just start calorie counting.
There is such a thing as brown fat which burns energy specifically to maintain temperature in many mammals incouding humans, but if one is working energetically (or hill walking, for instance) there is probably ample spare heat as a by product.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
The next betting discussion must surely be to guess the date of the first (reputable national) poll with a Tory lead?
Or we could open a book on when our 'new' poster (welcome, Bartholomew) reaches 1,000 posts. Nearest wins. I reckon 11.47am, 30/12/21.
Unless all his piratey stuff keeps him busier than his predecessor?
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
Burns Night soon.
A Prince can mak a belted knight, A marquis, duke, an a that! But an honest man’s aboon his might – Guid faith, he mauna fa that! For a that, an a that, Their dignities, an a that, The pith o Sense an pride o’ Worth Are higher rank than a that.
I sometimes wonder if the “scientific” advice to ministers would be different if they were forced to confront the short and long term economic and societal consequences of what they are proposing (rather than just blithely dismiss as “not a matter for them”).
I sometimes wonder whether politicians would act differently if they were forced to work in a hospital.
Hospitals, hospitals, hospitals...
The country is more than just one big chain of hospitals.
If we have a rolling programme of destructive restrictions (which may or may not do any blessed good regardless) lasting for eternity, then who and what is going to pay for the hospitals?
Yet hospitals are the pinch point resource that needs protecting, and the focus on them is exactly right.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 11m All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout. Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k. This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
The key point that came out of last night's reporting is that it is aimed at business owners, not employees, and many of the owners will simply be paying it across to their landlords. While many employees, often on temporary, short-term or zero-hours contracts and looking forward to the usual generous haul of tips from the holiday period, will be left high and dry.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
Yes, I still think the bet wins but I see it as fairly priced now, with risk, whereas I had been viewing it as a stone cold certainty. The last few weeks really have transformed things. I didn't see it coming.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
It's pretty confusing. Russia has Ukrainian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Russian. I think there were a lot of the third group in the Crimea, but rather more of the second in the Donbass. I think.
Being a Russian speaker doesn't stop you being a patriotic Ukrainian, just as most Welsh speak English. When I was in Poltava it appeared pretty much 100% Russian speaking but plenty of Ukrainian flags out (and Stepan Bandera's flying from the victory monument). So it is messy. I'm wondering if Putin wants the entire Left Bank plus Kyiv. I suspect it is a matter of some annoyance that the centre of mediaeval Rus civilisation is in Ukraine.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
The next betting discussion must surely be to guess the date of the first (reputable national) poll with a Tory lead?
Or we could open a book on when our 'new' poster (welcome, Bartholomew) reaches 1,000 posts. Nearest wins. I reckon 11.47am, 30/12/21.
If the Norfolk Dominatrix triggers A16 he could do it by midnight tonight.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
Yes and yes. But that's not all.
I think from my knowledge of Russia - which isn't complete, so I could easily be wrong - would say they're suspicious of NATO less because they think it will invade than because it gives help and support to countries they think of as either being hostile to them and their interests (e.g. intervening in Kosovo) or makes it more difficult to take back countries they regard as inalienably Russian that have somehow gone off track (Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia). Especially Ukraine. Remember Russia grew out of a state based on Kiev.
That's why they're so aggressive. They are paranoid not about direct invasion but about being made smaller and weaker so they can be dominated by others when they think given their size and resources they should be doing the dominating.
That article @IanB2 linked to is interesting on this point given the propaganda being forced on Russian children (especially) seems designed to reinforce this worldview.
This isn´t really about Russia, its about Putin. Overwhelmingly the Russians do not want a war, but Putin does, to try and save his corrupt and ramshackle government from being overthrown by the Russian people. Putin is 70 and not reputed to be in the best of health, he is also more or less isolated from his own people. His track record as leader is basically disastrous and his "misperception of risk" now so extreme that he is prepared to launch a reckless European war that could easily lead to a nuclear exchange.
So, all in all not great news. But we have time, and kicking the can down the road is not a foolish idea. Eventually Putin will be gone and it is more likley that the regime will moderate after his departure rather than doubling down on a challenge to the West.
Russia is bad weather, China is climate change- for Russia as much as the West.
How many days, or hours, of the use of "ex-pats" for immigrants/refugees/economic migrants do you think it would survive before being deemed just as racist as any other word ?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 11m All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout. Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k. This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
No good deed goes unpunished. If the announcement had been £5bn or £10bn, it still wouldn’t have been enough.
£1bn is about £14 from each of us, it is not going to go very far. Restaurant near me had over 100 cancellations in a day last week, their grant will cover that day, but not much left for all the other days.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
How do I know they were anointed by God? You could just be making that up?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
Imagine how England (like Russia, a similarly dehorned superpower unable to move past WW2) would feel if France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway all joined the EEU and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
Putin is trying to force an escalation over Ukraine so that he can offer deescalation to get concessions. What has has going for him is that Russia has an enormous political capacity to take casualties where NATO and the EU have none.
Ben "Swain" Wallace has recently confirmed that there will be no UK military response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thanks for clearing that up for us, YOU BALD TWAT, I thought we'd be well up for a massive tank battle under a hail of chemical weapons and tac nukes in the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket.
What about deterrence though? Shouldn't we be putting the fear of god into Vlad by telling him if he lays a finger on Ukraine he'll get a Trident up his jacksy?
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 11m All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout. Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k. This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
Not an accountant but aiui, if you make a loss then whilst its not taxed that year, losses can carry forward so depending on future profitability may still end up being taxed eventually.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
It's pretty confusing. Russia has Ukrainian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Russian. I think there were a lot of the third group in the Crimea, but rather more of the second in the Donbass. I think.
Being a Russian speaker doesn't stop you being a patriotic Ukrainian, just as most Welsh speak English. When I was in Poltava it appeared pretty much 100% Russian speaking but plenty of Ukrainian flags out (and Stepan Bandera's flying from the victory monument). So it is messy. I'm wondering if Putin wants the entire Left Bank plus Kyiv. I suspect it is a matter of some annoyance that the centre of mediaeval Rus civilisation is in Ukraine.
It’s not a wild assumption that Putin wants to go as far as the Dnieper, that gives him about 40% of what’s now Ukraine.
Whether he’ll be able to cross into Kiev City is more debatable, there’s only half a dozen bridges. The problem might be if he takes out the dam just north of the city, that provides a lot of Kiev’s electricity and stops the city flooding.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 11m All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout. Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k. This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
No good deed goes unpunished. If the announcement had been £5bn or £10bn, it still wouldn’t have been enough.
£1bn is about £14 from each of us, it is not going to go very far. Restaurant near me had over 100 cancellations in a day last week, their grant will cover that day, but not much left for all the other days.
Daughter reckons she would get no more than ca. £1500. That is less than a third of her normal monthly wage bills. She has 12 bookings this week. 12 in Xmas week. So staff hours are being cut back drastically.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That's also very odd theology - it wasn't the C of E and Henry VIII that saved humanity from Original Sin. It was redemption by the self-sacrifice of God's son which did it.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
It's pretty confusing. Russia has Ukrainian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Russian. I think there were a lot of the third group in the Crimea, but rather more of the second in the Donbass. I think.
Being a Russian speaker doesn't stop you being a patriotic Ukrainian, just as most Welsh speak English. When I was in Poltava it appeared pretty much 100% Russian speaking but plenty of Ukrainian flags out (and Stepan Bandera's flying from the victory monument). So it is messy. I'm wondering if Putin wants the entire Left Bank plus Kyiv. I suspect it is a matter of some annoyance that the centre of mediaeval Rus civilisation is in Ukraine.
It’s not a wild assumption that Putin wants to go as far as the Dnieper, that gives him about 40% of what’s now Ukraine.
Whether he’ll be able to cross into Kiev City is more debatable, there’s only half a dozen bridges. The problem might be if he takes out the dam just north of the city, that provides a lot of Kiev’s electricity and stops the city flooding.
I reckon he's too much of a chicken to try and take Kiev.
In our "best Prime Minister" question, 34% think Keir Starmer would make the best PM (+1 from our last survey on 14-15 December 2021), compared to 22% who think the incumbent Boris Johnson is the better PM (-1). Two in five people (39%) were not sure either way.
I’ve just been given my “third dose” rather than my “booster” which means if we have vax passports I need to wait another 90 days at least to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
I think you still count if you aren't eligible for a booster yet.
It's not even that. You just have to have had two shots. Johnson said at the time that it will be two shots "for now".
In our "best Prime Minister" question, 34% think Keir Starmer would make the best PM (+1 from our last survey on 14-15 December 2021), compared to 22% who think the incumbent Boris Johnson is the better PM (-1). Two in five people (39%) were not sure either way.
I’ve just been given my “third dose” rather than my “booster” which means if we have vax passports I need to wait another 90 days at least to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
I think you still count if you aren't eligible for a booster yet.
It's not even that. You just have to have had two shots. Johnson said at the time that it will be two shots "for now".
True and I don't think the government is currently differentiating 3rd primary doses or boosters.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
When Putin goes, Russia will deflate
Russia is a military industrial state. Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies. The problem with such a state is that, like America, it seeks military adventures to justify itself.
"Its armed forces are better equipped than most similar economies."
Only because their economy has fallen so far due to utter mismanagement. I mean, Canada are ahead of them in GDP terms.
That's not to congratulate them on their military, which, nukes aside, is a bit of a hollow shell - just see the figures I gave earlier. They're trying to maintain world superpower forces on a GDP that barely makes it a local power. Something has to give: and that's quality.
(We've faced the same issue, and gone down the route of *trying* to maintain quality but reduce numbers. This is what Russia should have done.)
Russia's enormous size and geographic position make that more difficult though. We're an island surrounded by military allies. Our military is mostly used in war zones a long way off or for humanitarian missions at home and abroad.
They're a continent wide power surrounded by many states that are at best neutral and at worst would be hostile given half a chance. I can see why they feel quantity over quality might be important on that basis.
It’s one of the crazy things about Russia, I know their past must haunt them with being invaded by Napoleon and Hitler but do they seriously really believe that any European countries or the US are going to invade them? Do they feel threatened by the various Stans to their south?
The only potential threat to Russia is from China in the east so could easily understand a large military focus there but in the west - it’s nuts.
Their problem is that by their actions they ensure that NATO needs to point their guns at them - Germany does not suddenly want to roll tanks into Moscow.
My mother was Russian-born, uininterested in politics after an overdose of it in her youth, but retaining quite strong feelings for the country. For her, the willingness of many people in some of the neighbouring countries to help the Nazis was unforgiveable (a cousin starved to death in the siege of Leningrad so it wasn't just abstract for her), and she was especially hostile to Poland and the Ukraine for combining anti-Russian feeling with elements of anti-semitism. It's all a long time ago and nearly everyone involved is dead now, but I imagine that the sense that a great country which has been invaded in (just) living memory has been undermined and is being gnawed at by hostile forces has carried over to many in the next generations.
I'm not defending any of this - obviously Stalin's policies had a lot to do with the neighbours' hostility - but I imagine the sense of loss that many Russians feel, and I do think that we let Gorbachev down with false reassurances that we wouldn't expand NATO to Russia's borders if he was relaxed about their joining the EU. Putin taking a tough line will certainly be popular, though I doubt if many really want a major war with Ukraine, and I don't think it will happen - Putin is making a show of force, but it can't possibly be in his interest to occupy an area where most people, unlike the Crimea, are with good reason viscerally hostile - it'd be Afghanistan all over again, writ large.
The east of Ukraine is reportedly more pro-Russian, and it is possible I guess that he has territorial ambitions short of complete annexation?
AIUI East Ukraine is majority (or close to it) ethnically Russian due to industrialisation and immigration. Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
It's pretty confusing. Russia has Ukrainian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Ukrainian and Russian speakers who consider themselves Russian. I think there were a lot of the third group in the Crimea, but rather more of the second in the Donbass. I think.
Being a Russian speaker doesn't stop you being a patriotic Ukrainian, just as most Welsh speak English. When I was in Poltava it appeared pretty much 100% Russian speaking but plenty of Ukrainian flags out (and Stepan Bandera's flying from the victory monument). So it is messy. I'm wondering if Putin wants the entire Left Bank plus Kyiv. I suspect it is a matter of some annoyance that the centre of mediaeval Rus civilisation is in Ukraine.
It’s not a wild assumption that Putin wants to go as far as the Dnieper, that gives him about 40% of what’s now Ukraine.
Whether he’ll be able to cross into Kiev City is more debatable, there’s only half a dozen bridges. The problem might be if he takes out the dam just north of the city, that provides a lot of Kiev’s electricity and stops the city flooding.
More likely that he will try to seize the coast, to link with Transnistria and leave rump Ukraine as a land locked state. This is just another attempt at "Novarossiya" and it will probably fail.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
Divine right to be head of the C of E and constitutional monarch of the UK yes but ruling with Parliament, not trying to be an absolute monarch like Charles 1st was before the civil war
What about deterrence though? Shouldn't we be putting the fear of god into Vlad by telling him if he lays a finger on Ukraine he'll get a Trident up his jacksy?
Yeah, let's have a nuclear war over fucking Ukraine.
I think Russia is going to become a very difficult place to govern in the next few years, especially if Putin tries something in Ukraine.
A pincer movement of declining population and the loss of hydrocarbons revenue as the world pivots towards net zero is pretty hard to resist. Add in another expensive frozen conflict and the coffers will empty fast while everyone’s standard of living shrinks.
I expect Putin will keep going until death or infirmity, but he’s no spring chicken so sooner or later there is going to be the après Putin deluge.
Meanwhile Ukraine is equally or more up the creek economically.
Laurence Smith's 'world in 2050' prognosis was the complete opposite; he points to the huge untapped resources Russia has under Siberia and the progressive advantage living in northern climes will have under climate change, plus some other geo-political factors I can't remember, to paint a positive picture. Here's the summary from Amazon:
The New North is a book that turns the world literally upside down. Analysing four key 'megatrends' - population growth and migration, natural resource demand, climate change and globalisation - UCLA professor Larry Smith projects a world that by mid-century will have shifted its political and economic axes radically to the north. The beneficiaries of this new order, based on a bonanza of oil, natural gas, minerals and plentiful water will be the Arctic regions of Russia, Alaska and Canada, and Scandinavia. Meanwhile countries closer to the equator will face water shortages, aging populations, crowded megacities and coastal flooding. Smith draws on geography, economics, history, earth and climate science, but what makes his arguments so compelling is that he has spent many months exploring the region, talking to people in once-inaccessible Arctic towns, noting their economies, politics and stories.
I suspect it will be the Chinese who make most use of that. They’re geographically closer to a lot of it.
The bonanza of oil and natural gas isn’t going to be such a bonanza in a net zero world though.
I’m not convinced generally either, given we see the opposite patterns at the moment in North America with migration and economic growth in the South.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
We chopped the head off a King who tried to claim divine right to rule and chucked out his son, James VII/II in the Glorious Revolution when he did not want to obey the then constitutional arrangement. The point about Monarchy is that it is constitutional and conditional, not absolute. If you try to claim some spurious divinity for it, then it should be abolished immediately.
On topic those are pro-Christmas headlines, not pro-Boris headlines
I always agree with your posts Zeddy! They are always spot on. I don’t know what you are on or can share it.
There’s a historical trend right through Boris Premiership (aka Boris Johnson World) they trade to get worse headlines next week for some good ones this week.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
There’s also other trade agreements under discussion, for example with the Gulf States, to where UK food and retail exports are huge. In aggregate, along with CP-TPP membership, it will grow the pie.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
Divine right to be head of the C of E and constitutional monarch of the UK yes but ruling with Parliament, not trying to be an absolute monarch like Charles 1st was before the civil war
So, basically, if Ms Truss became PM and tried to abolish the monarchy, you'd accuse her of heresy as well as treason?
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That's also very odd theology - it wasn't the C of E and Henry VIII that saved humanity from Original Sin. It was redemption by the self-sacrifice of God's son which did it.
That is more offering the pathway of Christianity rather than Judaism as the salvation from sin. Hence leading to the formation of the Christian Church through his disciples, with St Peter given authority by Christ to become the first Pope of the Catholic Church. That then evolved into the monarch of England becoming the first head of the Church of England at the Reformation replacing the Pope as head of the English church but based on the same Christian principles Christ set out
Comments
The BMC (not ClimbUK as they rather stupidly tried to become) and the MCoS (who did register as ClimbScotland) would probably be the organisations to deal with this, provided their internal politics don't cause them to blow up.
But it would never fly, really. How do you draw the line between a risky activity that needs insurance, and one that doesn't? Walking through a field of cows can be quite edgy sometimes.
Small donation just sent to them (that time of year).
However it is the outcome in the U.K. population that counts.
There is far too much fat delusion online, silly diets and "genetics". Just start calorie counting.
I was just having a similar thought - there will be many of us who have run a surplus this year, with all that’s gone on. Christmas is a good time to think of charities, and of giving something back to the community where we can.
The mutation may well be a net positive for the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtQQ-hsplH8
In fact, who even governed well? Blair? Was competent until he became too messianic and it's difficult to ignore Iraq, but overall I think qualifies, If anything was too timid especially early on. Thatcher is interesting, certainly she made the changes she wanted to make in her first 2 terms, taking the politics out of it a lot of the governing was competent. But I can't quite detach myself from the view I had from being in the north for the second half of her term that overall it was extremely harmful for the country, and in some ways the north is still yet to recover.
But then even the Attlee's government had run out of steam by 1950. Baldwin 1935-7?
A pincer movement of declining population and the loss of hydrocarbons revenue as the world pivots towards net zero is pretty hard to resist. Add in another expensive frozen conflict and the coffers will empty fast while everyone’s standard of living shrinks.
I expect Putin will keep going until death or infirmity, but he’s no spring chicken so sooner or later there is going to be the après Putin deluge.
Meanwhile Ukraine is equally or more up the creek economically.
Yes it's a complete anecdote but I can eat 500 extra calories a day (say a chocolate bar or pudding) and Mrs Eek will continue to put weight on while I stay the same.
As I said there is a whole lot of human biology we don't 100% understand - sleeping and human metabolism are 2 such items. And anyone who claims to have the answer at best only has a short term solution.
I am having to make a recipe for the xmas day veggies using 'Greek style' cheese.
Is there no end to our sufferings?
And today's Georgians are split, many of them regarding him s 'history's most famous Georgian'.
As to your second point, you're missing the thrust of what I'm saying, I'm not sure whether wilfully or out of obtuseness. You can't set arbitrary dates for weeks into the future into a fast moving infectious disease pandemic and just follow them because you should be assessing the situation. Just as, this week, we shouldn't be having reports of 'we'll have more restrictions on the 28th' because that's not how this disease will work.
What should have been done is a weekly meeting on a Monday, starting that first Monday, to see if there was a possibility schools could be reopened probably not the following week but the week after that. And that should have taken into account the prevalence of the disease, the level of vaccination, the strain on hospitals and (one thing you've forgotten) the availability of staff, given that there were a high number of vulnerable people still required to shield.
(Continued)
Instead, let me run you through what happened.
In early December, schools and LEAs that had made the decision to switch to remote learning for the final week before Christmas were threatened with unlawful legal action by the DfE to reverse that decision - and were thus forced to reverse it because due to the expense of Covid they had no money to contest it.
We were told, in the final week, that there would be mass testing in the new term. Hopefully, if we got the kits in time. Which we might or might not.
During the holidays, we were told there would be a staggered return to school, with some groups not back in for two weeks, which we would have to teach remotely.
On the first day of the new term, schools had to be closed due to soaring case numbers.
Two weeks later, the Times reports they will be reopened on March 8th.
In mid-February, Gavin Williamson deigns to mention this in the House of Commons, neglecting the fairly important detail that due to running a bizarre and convoluted testing regime - for which school staff have to be used, without extra pay and without any training - some students won't be back before March 22nd.
When they go back, they have to wear face masks, which are not provided, nor are extra resources for purchasing hand sanitizer, and the bubble system is strengthened.
These measures effectively continue until the May half term, by which time cases are rising again.
Now, do you honestly think this shows people matching their actions to events? Or taking into account the science? Or acting in the best interests of children? Because it really doesn't look that way to me. As I say, we got lucky with March 8th but that is a coincidence. It was just one of a series of arbitrary and reckless decisions made by a group who were adamant to keep schools open by whatever means they could - even illegal methods - whatever the damage it did.
If you think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you. If you offer me enough to retire that would be great.
If you don't agree, feel free to keep arguing with the facts, but they won't change just because you wish them to, but I have better things to do with my time.
Parliament gives exemptions it wants to, and taxes what it wants to. If the tax code was 'clean' it would be a hell of a lot simpler.
Although, again AIUI, 'nationality' in that part of the world is more a question of language.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
Similarly: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
The New North is a book that turns the world literally upside down. Analysing four key 'megatrends' - population growth and migration, natural resource demand, climate change and globalisation - UCLA professor Larry Smith projects a world that by mid-century will have shifted its political and economic axes radically to the north. The beneficiaries of this new order, based on a bonanza of oil, natural gas, minerals and plentiful water will be the Arctic regions of Russia, Alaska and Canada, and Scandinavia. Meanwhile countries closer to the equator will face water shortages, aging populations, crowded megacities and coastal flooding. Smith draws on geography, economics, history, earth and climate science, but what makes his arguments so compelling is that he has spent many months exploring the region, talking to people in once-inaccessible Arctic towns, noting their economies, politics and stories.
Lots more data needed alas, which is why the government is in the pickle it is.
I like Bartholomew as a name. Good choice. My music teacher was called Bartholomew. Now there was a frustrated soul.
She’s previously been of the opinion that Russia needs a strong leader, because the country would quickly fall apart without it, and also sees that the state of Ukraine came from lines on a cartographer’s map rather than a cohesive demos of people. She definitely recognises the need for Putin to manufacture an international crisis in order to distract from a domestic one.
I reckon 11.47am, 30/12/21.
I’ve just been given my “third dose” rather than my “booster” which means if we have vax passports I need to wait another 90 days at least to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
@EssexPR
·
11m
All the media rounds quoting the 6k figure from yesterdays Hospitality bailout.
Remember,that so many in the industry will actually get £2700 or £4k.
This isn’t free,it’s taxable.
It was a welcome gesture,but for most Hospitality businesses,it doesn’t touch the sides of losses.
===
Although presume not taxed if you make a loss over the financial year?
At the moment most are "don't know" and this is one reason why the polling shares for all opposition parties are rising at the same time - even with the same number of poll respondents saying they support x, it's now a larger proportion of a smaller base.
If that pattern changes then it would be a sign that the electorate has decided they will "vote Labour to kick the Tories out". At the moment the mood is more like "the Tories are w**kers, but who else is there?" That's much easier to be coaxed back into the Tory voting column.
Putin is trying to force an escalation over Ukraine so that he can offer deescalation to get concessions. What has has going for him is that Russia has an enormous political capacity to take casualties where NATO and the EU have none.
Ben "Swain" Wallace has recently confirmed that there will be no UK military response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thanks for clearing that up for us, YOU BALD TWAT, I thought we'd be well up for a massive tank battle under a hail of chemical weapons and tac nukes in the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket.
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1473218006318829575?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1473218520825610244?s=20
A Prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an a that!
But an honest man’s aboon his might –
Guid faith, he mauna fa that!
For a that, an a that,
Their dignities, an a that,
The pith o Sense an pride o’ Worth
Are higher rank than a that.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
So, all in all not great news. But we have time, and kicking the can down the road is not a foolish idea. Eventually Putin will be gone and it is more likley that the regime will moderate after his departure rather than doubling down on a challenge to the West.
Russia is bad weather, China is climate change- for Russia as much as the West.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
Whether he’ll be able to cross into Kiev City is more debatable, there’s only half a dozen bridges. The problem might be if he takes out the dam just north of the city, that provides a lot of Kiev’s electricity and stops the city flooding.
Lab: 36% (-1 from 14-15 Dec)
Con: 30% (-2)
Lib Dem: 12% (+2)
Green: 8% (+1)
SNP: 6% (+1)
Reform UK: 5% (-1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/22/voting-intention-con-30-lab-36-19-20-dec?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1473604780639637509?s=20
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/22/voting-intention-con-30-lab-36-19-20-dec
However the LDs would be on their highest level since 2010 and hold the balance of power in a hung parliament again
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1473598531013337090
The bonanza of oil and natural gas isn’t going to be such a bonanza in a net zero world though.
I’m not convinced generally either, given we see the opposite patterns at the moment in North America with migration and economic growth in the South.
https://tinyurl.com/2p85tvfn
See Table 11.
https://www.panoramictrial.org/
There’s a historical trend right through Boris Premiership (aka Boris Johnson World) they trade to get worse headlines next week for some good ones this week.
They are thick.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.