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?
Yes but Liz Truss confirmed to Nick Robinson earlier this month she now supports our constitutional monarchy as a key part of British democracy anyway
Are you so forgiving with other politicians whose views change?
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
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
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.
AIUI we have one scheme announced from an initial 3, the lowest value one, and doubtless there will be further adjustments.
I'm not sure that we know enough yet to reach such precise conclusions.
Though I admit I don't drive around advising people, or own half of Lincolnshire.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
I have a 1/333,000 chance of dying from COVID. I'll take those odds!
Exactly the same for me.....
I'm much more at risk, it seems. 1 in 142,000. Though this appears to increase significantly to a 1 in 4900 chance of dying if I catch it. But I'd have thought the chances of me catching it again at some point were pretty certain...?
It is a 90 day figure. A bit weird would have thought over a year would be a more normal way to think about it, especially when it appears to have seasonality, at least in the UK.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 21m The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
Hope it’s not an imaginary turkey from his imaginary butcher.
The sheer muscularity of some of these chaps with a bare bold "Liberal" as their Twitter handle is quite something. What they say is always very very bracing.
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.
Indeed.
Personally, I would point out to the East Politics types in Germany, that while we will go along with their sell-Ukraine-down-the-river policies, if they start compromising the Baltics to placate Russia..... Well, we will seek our own guarantees* from Putin.
*Cash for whatever he wants to invade. How much for Berlin?
If there's a war in Ukraine, it will be fought by separatists that just happen to have the same equipment as the Russian Army, against Ukrainians that can do a decent Birmingham accent.
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?
Yes but Liz Truss confirmed to Nick Robinson earlier this month she now supports our constitutional monarchy as a key part of British democracy anyway
Are you so forgiving with other politicians whose views change?
Surely there's some fellow feeling? Her party line changed and she followed it.
SNP 6% in a GB poll!! Jeepers! That is exceedingly rare.
Rounding and small numbers, of course, but that is interesting (though we have had 4% lately as well, with ?other pollsters). Wonder when the next Scotland only poll is coming?
I think the 6% likely comes because of high numbers of Tory 2019 don't knows in England making the base smaller. The Scotland subsample has the SNP on 47%, which wouldn't normally be enough for 6% GB-wide, but it's because don't knows/would not vote/refused are only 19% in the Scotland subsample and are as high as 37% in some of the other regions (Midlands/Wales).
Interesting that Labour have a lead with men, as well as women, in this poll.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
A little regional variation: in a gastropub in Cornwall — they managed to squeeze me in af 11:30, but entire place fully booked for lunch.
That's interesting to hear - it's not that busy down here (Penzance) and pretty easy to get bookings/walk in this week though some shortages due to staff absence are reducing availability.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of "Philip Thompson" and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Very woke of him, but sits ill with the assorted atrocities and all the other piracy.
Isn't that punching down against the Legally Challenged Community members of the sea-faring world?
James Melville @JamesMelville · 21m The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
Hope it’s not an imaginary turkey from his imaginary butcher.
The sheer muscularity of some of these chaps with a bare bold "Liberal" as their Twitter handle is quite something. What they say is always very very bracing.
Yes, you can see the ice encrustations falling as they ripple their deltoids.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of "Philip Thompson" and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Very woke of him, but sits ill with the assorted atrocities and all the other piracy.
Isn't that punching down against the Legally Challenged Community members of the sea-faring world?
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
And it is the C of England. Leaves out the Scots (and even their Episcopalian Church is sister not daughter), Irish and Welsh.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of "Philip Thompson" and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Very woke of him, but sits ill with the assorted atrocities and all the other piracy.
Isn't that punching down against the Legally Challenged Community members of the sea-faring world?
Have you checked your privilege?
Not to mention the Welsh.
Simultaneously burning and drowning a shipload of enslaved people does count as punching down against Legally Challenged Community (albewit temporary) members of the sea-faring world.
A little regional variation: in a gastropub in Cornwall — they managed to squeeze me in af 11:30, but entire place fully booked for lunch.
That's interesting to hear - it's not that busy down here (Penzance) and pretty easy to get bookings/walk in this week though some shortages due to staff absence are reducing availability.
There are several million SeanT's who've escaped from the plague pit that is London, to hide in Cornwall. Again.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
And it is the C of England. Leaves out the Scots (and even their Episcopalian Church is sister not daughter), Irish and Welsh.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Your love of hierarchy has run away with your common sense.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
That depends on whether you think food supply is like mining coal.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Your love of hierarchy has run away with your common sense.
Also, what happens if a bigger denomination than the C of E decides, for instance, that Princess Anne should succeed HmtQ, for instance?
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people.
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
Thanks @HYUFD . Like @Selebian I am interested in these replies. I remember you gave a rather interesting one (in that it wasn't one that I had heard before and squared the circle) re Adam and Eve and Evolution a few weeks ago when I asked.
I have another one for you. I did ask you this a few weeks ago when there was a discussion on abortion. You didn't reply but my post (as often happens) was at the end of a thread. I meant to ask again, but didn't get around to it.
My question is not to get into the rights and wrongs of abortion (an endless argument) but to understand your Christian view on what to me is a specific problem.
I assume your view is that life starts at conception. Although not a view I agree with it is one I can respect and it is the only one with a definite date for life which is handy. However it does cause a problem in other areas (I witnessed Melanie Philips being turned into a gibbering idiot over this one as she had conflicting views):
What is your view on contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg bonding with the womb. Life has started and cells have started to split?
What is your view on man fertilising eggs and experimenting on the growing embryo in the Lab?
What is your view on IVF where spare fertilised eggs are destroyed?
I would not ban abortion outright, so I don't have a problem with most of that, though I would reduce the time limit closer to 20 weeks
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Your love of hierarchy has run away with your common sense.
Also, what happens if a bigger denomination than the C of E decides, for instance, that Princess Anne should succeed HmtQ, for instance?
God works in mysterious ways. A bit like the British constitution.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
Is that done by one of those Simon Cowell shows yet?
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Your love of hierarchy has run away with your common sense.
Also, what happens if a bigger denomination than the C of E decides, for instance, that Princess Anne should succeed HmtQ, for instance?
Then Princess Anne could be their Supreme Head on earth but Charles would still be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes King
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of xxx and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Why the deadnaming? He has always been Bartholomew.
No, I don't hold with that. You can't rewrite history. He was born a Philip Thompson and that is forever the case.
Key thing is, no bigotry-based barriers to making this change now. It's something he needs to do and it harms no other PB poster.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people.
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
Thanks @HYUFD . Like @Selebian I am interested in these replies. I remember you gave a rather interesting one (in that it wasn't one that I had heard before and squared the circle) re Adam and Eve and Evolution a few weeks ago when I asked.
I have another one for you. I did ask you this a few weeks ago when there was a discussion on abortion. You didn't reply but my post (as often happens) was at the end of a thread. I meant to ask again, but didn't get around to it.
My question is not to get into the rights and wrongs of abortion (an endless argument) but to understand your Christian view on what to me is a specific problem.
I assume your view is that life starts at conception. Although not a view I agree with it is one I can respect and it is the only one with a definite date for life which is handy. However it does cause a problem in other areas (I witnessed Melanie Philips being turned into a gibbering idiot over this one as she had conflicting views):
What is your view on contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg bonding with the womb. Life has started and cells have started to split?
What is your view on man fertilising eggs and experimenting on the growing embryo in the Lab?
What is your view on IVF where spare fertilised eggs are destroyed?
I would not ban abortion outright, so I don't have a problem with most of that, though I would reduce the time limit closer to 20 weeks
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
Again - where have I put any personal opinion in my posts today regarding rural votes?
All I've said is that here are facts and stories that on opposition party will use to attract rural votes away from their traditional home.
In which case we are on the same page.
Liberating our trade and being able to get cheaper food if it's more competitive is the right thing to do in my eyes. If that costs votes, I'm fine with that.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Your love of hierarchy has run away with your common sense.
No, the monarch is Head of the Church of England by grace of God as the Pope is Head of the Roman Catholic Church by grace of God.
The people as a whole do not get a say on that and if they are not Anglicans or Catholics their view on it is irrelevant anyway.
The people only get a say on the monarch's lawmaking powers when they elect MPs in Parliament the monarch and their government have to work with
I have just royally pissed off one of those nuisance phone callers ringing me up to tell me my phone line had been hacked by speaking to her only in Welsh.
The replies to her questions were perfectly straightforward - if you speak Welsh.
Judging from how annoyed she got, she doesn't.
There's a certain satisfaction in getting one over on them, isn't there?
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
Again - where have I put any personal opinion in my posts today regarding rural votes?
All I've said is that here are facts and stories that on opposition party will use to attract rural votes away from their traditional home.
In which case we are on the same page.
Liberating our trade and being able to get cheaper food if it's more competitive is the right thing to do in my eyes. If that costs votes, I'm fine with that.
I have a 1/333,000 chance of dying from COVID. I'll take those odds!
Exactly the same for me.....
I'm much more at risk, it seems. 1 in 142,000. Though this appears to increase significantly to a 1 in 4900 chance of dying if I catch it. But I'd have thought the chances of me catching it again at some point were pretty certain...?
Thanks for that link, some how its fun to see how likely to die you are!
I'm 1 in 166,667
So a bit less likely than you Cooky, but about twice Mortimer and MaxPB,
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people....
It comes by consent of the people - Parliament could abolish the monarchy almost overnight if it so chose. Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
The monarch is head of the Church of England by Grace of God not the people or Parliament. The Archbishop merely confirms God's choice.
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Your love of hierarchy has run away with your common sense.
Also, what happens if a bigger denomination than the C of E decides, for instance, that Princess Anne should succeed HmtQ, for instance?
Then Princess Anne could be their Supreme Head on earth but Charles would still be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes King
And if they get enough votes in Pmt to change the monarchy?
A little regional variation: in a gastropub in Cornwall — they managed to squeeze me in af 11:30, but entire place fully booked for lunch.
That's interesting to hear - it's not that busy down here (Penzance) and pretty easy to get bookings/walk in this week though some shortages due to staff absence are reducing availability.
There are several million SeanT's who've escaped from the plague pit that is London, to hide in Cornwall. Again.
I'm not up to speed with today's thread so may not be appreciating the complexities of multiple generations of LeonT/Barty Thompsons, but I assumed that their multiple accounts could post away while comfortably accommodated at a table for 1. Anyway, in anticipation of the invasion, I'm planning to head away to London plague pit between Christmas and NY, if it's allowed. Should be nice and quiet.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of "Philip Thompson" and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Very woke of him, but sits ill with the assorted atrocities and all the other piracy.
Certainly no role model by the looks of it. Also died at 39 which I truly hope isn't a portent.
"The chief operating officer at CUH, Dr Ewen Cameron said: "About 80 per cent of the people admitted to Addenbrooke’s with Covid, to intensive care units and general Covid wards, are unvaccinated." (*)
If the NHS fails due to Omicron, a vast proportion of that failure would be down to the selfish fools (Hi, Dura_Ace!) who choose not to get vaccinated when they can. If we go into a lockdown (**), it will be because of the pressure they are putting on the NHS. And you don't even have to get Covid to be affected by them: get ill for another reason, or have an accident, and you may not get the treatment you require. And is we are forced into a lockdown, we all suffer.
Their mindless, stupid selfishness will harm all of us. It's time they paid for their arrogance. Tax the fuc*ers. Treat them not with understanding for their scientific illiteracy and cr@p they spread: treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Alternatively, this is proof of the effectiveness of any of single, double or booster levels of vaccination against hospitalization, as the unvaccinated are 36 times (not 36%) more likely to be admitted to hospital than those with one or more shot.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people.
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
Thanks @HYUFD . Like @Selebian I am interested in these replies. I remember you gave a rather interesting one (in that it wasn't one that I had heard before and squared the circle) re Adam and Eve and Evolution a few weeks ago when I asked.
I have another one for you. I did ask you this a few weeks ago when there was a discussion on abortion. You didn't reply but my post (as often happens) was at the end of a thread. I meant to ask again, but didn't get around to it.
My question is not to get into the rights and wrongs of abortion (an endless argument) but to understand your Christian view on what to me is a specific problem.
I assume your view is that life starts at conception. Although not a view I agree with it is one I can respect and it is the only one with a definite date for life which is handy. However it does cause a problem in other areas (I witnessed Melanie Philips being turned into a gibbering idiot over this one as she had conflicting views):
What is your view on contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg bonding with the womb. Life has started and cells have started to split?
What is your view on man fertilising eggs and experimenting on the growing embryo in the Lab?
What is your view on IVF where spare fertilised eggs are destroyed?
I would not ban abortion outright, so I don't have a problem with most of that, though I would reduce the time limit closer to 20 weeks
You've changed your tune...
Even Texas is not proposing to ban abortion completely but an even more drastic reduction in the time limit
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
That depends on whether you think food supply is like mining coal.
I don't see why not.
Coal at the time was literally required for electricity, which is why the miners union had been able to hold the country to ransom in the seventies. Even post dash for gas, it was still critical for electricity supply. That remained true for decades.
In the modern era electricity supply is as important as food supply. As countries reliant upon PutinGas for theirs are now discovering.
Given the diversity of food, I suspect electricity supply is strategically even more important than food supply actually.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
That depends on whether you think food supply is like mining coal.
I don't see why not.
Coal at the time was literally required for electricity, which is why the miners union had been able to hold the country to ransom in the seventies. Even post dash for gas, it was still critical for electricity supply. That remained true for decades.
In the modern era electricity supply is as important as food supply. As countries reliant upon PutinGas for theirs are now discovering.
Given the diversity of food, I suspect electricity supply is strategically even more important than food supply actually.
Although food supply is clearly more vitally important.
For me it simply asked about being vaccinated at all (not whether 1 or 2 or booster).
I was 1 in 333k overall; 1 in ~10k after positive result.
As others have indicated, the overall risk surely needs a time limit attached - unless there's some quite optimistic assumption about getting to zero Covid/vaccines with complete neutralisation, getting infected at some point in the future looks a near certainty.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
Again - where have I put any personal opinion in my posts today regarding rural votes?
All I've said is that here are facts and stories that on opposition party will use to attract rural votes away from their traditional home.
In which case we are on the same page.
Liberating our trade and being able to get cheaper food if it's more competitive is the right thing to do in my eyes. If that costs votes, I'm fine with that.
Meet the new Philip. Same as the old Philip.
I can only assume the cloak of vague anonymity indicates TPFKAPT (The Poster Formerly Known As PT*) is contemplating running for office and wants the various embarassing social media posts to be slightly harder to uncover
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
Depends on the doubling time. If we're up to many thousands by Twelfth Night, the system may get overloaded.
I think just the 2 Philips would do that!
What happens if they debate each other? How will it ever end or de-escalate?
Thankfully not likely with the exact same views but should a scintilla of difference open up - eg Philip proposes a completely free market in body organs whereas Bartholomew would prefer to see at least some regulatory oversight - then, yes, we'd be looking at something like a perpetual motion machine.
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
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people.
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
Thanks @HYUFD . Like @Selebian I am interested in these replies. I remember you gave a rather interesting one (in that it wasn't one that I had heard before and squared the circle) re Adam and Eve and Evolution a few weeks ago when I asked.
I have another one for you. I did ask you this a few weeks ago when there was a discussion on abortion. You didn't reply but my post (as often happens) was at the end of a thread. I meant to ask again, but didn't get around to it.
My question is not to get into the rights and wrongs of abortion (an endless argument) but to understand your Christian view on what to me is a specific problem.
I assume your view is that life starts at conception. Although not a view I agree with it is one I can respect and it is the only one with a definite date for life which is handy. However it does cause a problem in other areas (I witnessed Melanie Philips being turned into a gibbering idiot over this one as she had conflicting views):
What is your view on contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg bonding with the womb. Life has started and cells have started to split?
What is your view on man fertilising eggs and experimenting on the growing embryo in the Lab?
What is your view on IVF where spare fertilised eggs are destroyed?
I would not ban abortion outright, so I don't have a problem with most of that, though I would reduce the time limit closer to 20 weeks
Cheers. I jumped to the wrong conclusions. I thought you were anti abortion completely by your previous posts and for those that are these examples are a problem. It completely befuddled Melanie Philips who didn't realize some contraception worked that way. Her resolution was to ignore the facts.
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.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
The best argument for free trade is in respect of the primary sector, where some countries have innate advantages and so can produce goods that others can't or can't do economically. Norway is always going to be better at producing oil than tomatoes. So, like you, I have no truck with protectionism applied to either agriculture or mining.
It's a different story in the manufacturing sector, where a new car plant (say) could be located just about anywhere provided that markets are open. That exposes countries to the need to offer sweetheart deals in bidding wars and a race to the bottom in labour markets and wages. eg. we'll build plant x here but only if you slash future pensions by 50%.
I have just royally pissed off one of those nuisance phone callers ringing me up to tell me my phone line had been hacked by speaking to her only in Welsh.
The replies to her questions were perfectly straightforward - if you speak Welsh.
Judging from how annoyed she got, she doesn't.
There's a certain satisfaction in getting one over on them, isn't there?
I take great pleasure in messing with them. Sadly I don't speak Welsh.
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
Good stuff Aitch. I would add though, to remind everyone, it wasn’t Satan’s design they ate from tree of knowledge, it was God’s Design.
God created them and told them not to eat from it but they listened to Satan's serpent and did so anyway and sin came into the world
Though there is the idea of a Felix Culpa- without the Apple Fiasco, there would have been no need or way for Christ to do his thing, and that has left us in a better place. Expressed in the Exultet in the Easter Litugies;
"O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."
(That was Thought from the Day from the Rev J.C. Flannel-in-Romford. Now back to the news.)
Don’t stop. I think you are onto something Stu. Can Satan do anything that is not God’s own design?
Comments
A dreadful new plague is all we need!
I'm not sure that we know enough yet to reach such precise conclusions.
Though I admit I don't drive around advising people, or own half of Lincolnshire.
Or disestablish the church.
And of course the Archbish is chosen by whom ?
Interesting that Labour have a lead with men, as well as women, in this poll.
Have you checked your privilege?
The people and Parliament get a say through elections in the making of laws as we have a constitutional not absolute monarchy and Parliament can restrain the powers of the monarch as they did after the civil war and glorious revolution. However only God can remove the monarch as Head of the Church of England
Rule of 6 in pubs
Social distancing rules reimposed
Table service only
Guidance to limit household mixing
No gatherings of more than 30
Which makes absolutely no sense at all now that the vaccine has been tested extensively on human subjects.
A bit like the British constitution.
No, I don't hold with that. You can't rewrite history. He was born a Philip Thompson and that is forever the case.
Key thing is, no bigotry-based barriers to making this change now. It's something he needs to do and it harms no other PB poster.
Liberating our trade and being able to get cheaper food if it's more competitive is the right thing to do in my eyes. If that costs votes, I'm fine with that.
The people as a whole do not get a say on that and if they are not Anglicans or Catholics their view on it is irrelevant anyway.
The people only get a say on the monarch's lawmaking powers when they elect MPs in Parliament the monarch and their government have to work with
The replies to her questions were perfectly straightforward - if you speak Welsh.
Judging from how annoyed she got, she doesn't.
There's a certain satisfaction in getting one over on them, isn't there?
Same as the old Philip.
I'm 1 in 166,667
So a bit less likely than you Cooky, but about twice Mortimer and MaxPB,
Coal at the time was literally required for electricity, which is why the miners union had been able to hold the country to ransom in the seventies. Even post dash for gas, it was still critical for electricity supply. That remained true for decades.
In the modern era electricity supply is as important as food supply. As countries reliant upon PutinGas for theirs are now discovering.
Given the diversity of food, I suspect electricity supply is strategically even more important than food supply actually.
This thread has resigned to spend more time earning real money
As Boris will never do.I was 1 in 333k overall; 1 in ~10k after positive result.
As others have indicated, the overall risk surely needs a time limit attached - unless there's some quite optimistic assumption about getting to zero Covid/vaccines with complete neutralisation, getting infected at some point in the future looks a near certainty.
*doing my bit to preserve anonymity
It's a different story in the manufacturing sector, where a new car plant (say) could be located just about anywhere provided that markets are open. That exposes countries to the need to offer sweetheart deals in bidding wars and a race to the bottom in labour markets and wages. eg. we'll build plant x here but only if you slash future pensions by 50%.