Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

There’s no need for a LAB-LD pact or progressive alliance – politicalbetting.com

14567810»

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,400
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It’s great to know England is safe in the collective hands of the 1922 Committee, 100 Tory backbenchers and the Telegraph, Mail, Express and Sun (our de facto government)- and the advice of “doom-laden” public health experts ignored. What a strange democracy in which we live.
    https://twitter.com/williamnhutton/status/1476273893577003016

    Advisors advising and ministers deciding with the input of elected MPs.

    What a strange democracy ...
    Whether one agrees with the recent decision or not, and notwithstanding the usual worry about influence of the press, that was a rather odd way of criticising it - that the PM feels he lacks legislative support for doing more may be many things, but undemocratic it isn't.
    But. Does he lack legislative support?
    Or does he lack Conservative legislative support?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.

    So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different

    Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
    I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
    That's not the same thing, is it?
    My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.

    What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
    You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
    I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.

    And with that, good night.
    But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.

    Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.

    This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
    The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
    By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
    By blocking French residents of France, too. Not to mention the Belgians etc.
    Got a link for that? It’s not what EuroTunnel are saying:

    https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/travelling-with-us/latest/covid-19/#foca
    The compelling reason lists to travel - in each direction - are here:

    https://mobile.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/130185/1036624/file/1612-motifs-imperieux-uk.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3KVyMgGLHnw7zxyoxdNMbMxeHqp-tQJM6fRBI8C5K81bcdbOZctDumei4
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,400

    DW - German case numbers are much higher than reported

    There is a known long term shortage of personnel running the system and this shows during holidays as not enough people to do the testing or process the results. Potential collapse of the testing infrastructure in the coming weeks if infections increase.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU7VPAvN61Q

    But apparently the UK testing system is utter shit...

    You can only take an LFT at a chemist or GP.
    Then return for a PCR.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,400
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    We are in big trouble I am afraid.

    You keep saying this, is there any chance of you elaborating? What scenario do you envisage for the UK, Europe, the world?


    Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening

    And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
    I posted a lot earlier Leon.

    I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.

    The people in hospital is going one way: up.

    I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
    My hospital has installed a fixed multi-user holding ambulance to help unload. There were 25 ambulances on the forecourt tonight as I walked out. It looks pretty grim in terms of capacity.
    Some mistake surely. The PB virology experts assure me tis just a cold. So what you describe can't be real...
    Here it is:



    Though most of those stuck in the ambulances unable to offload are with other conditions.
    Thanks for the photo. Note to PB Virology experts - when you say "no threat to the NHS" and the NHS have the evidence of exactly what the threat is, ask yourselves who may be in the know...
    There is a plan for temporary "Nightingale" wards in the car park too. Plans to staff them are a bit sketchy, but from Social Care apparently.

    Good mitigations I think, but it is all getting a bit hairy.
    So.
    Who does the Social Care then?
    Or is that a daft question?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_xP said:

    It’s great to know England is safe in the collective hands of the 1922 Committee, 100 Tory backbenchers and the Telegraph, Mail, Express and Sun (our de facto government)- and the advice of “doom-laden” public health experts ignored. What a strange democracy in which we live.
    https://twitter.com/williamnhutton/status/1476273893577003016

    Funny that a majority of the elected representatives in the commons get to say what goes. And that a government that can’t control a majority falls
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    If we are recommending movies/TV I have two new favourites


    The first is "Dopesick" - an eight part Disney/Hulu miniseries about the rise of opioid abuse in the USA, punted by Big Pharma and the Sackler Family (who really are represented as comic book Jewish villains, almost to the point of anti-Semitism, and yet by all accounts the portrait is realistic). The narrative jumps around time wise, to an annoying extent, but the emotional power builds, as well. Compelling, and harrowing

    The other is "The Great". A riotous, ribald, often fictional romp through the rise and rise of Catherine the Great of Russia. Expect lots of swearing, nudity, eye-gouging, scatological humour, mummified queens and death. It is of course full of made-up stories and dialogue, and yet from my reading of Russian history, it is also quite a faithful depiction of the lurid insanity of the Russian upper classes and their orgiastic drinking/fighting during the time of Peter the Great and his daughter-in-law Catherine. Brilliant fun.

    I got Empire of Pain for Christmas, and am looking forward to reading it.
    It’s depressing. People steered clear of Purdue but I didn’t realise quite how bad it was
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.

    After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant .. :)

    I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.

    There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
    Also differ in the audiences.

    Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
    I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.

    To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
    Absolutely. In the context of a Bible translation, it is likely to be an attempt to follow the correct corresponding words and structure of the original text - but understanding the process is v. important. May lead to eg a version stilted in English, but if being used for eg study in sermon prep. then the compromise would be worth it.

    Whilst a version designed more for public reading is likely to give more emphasis to fluency in the English expression.

    I had a friend who went to do Bible Translation in Ougadougou. Interesting conversations.

    On NIV - yes a very good translation but that had a bit of a habit of following evangelical ideas, by comparison with say the Jerusalem Bible, which had a bit of an RC fingerprint.
    I grew up on the Good News Bible, although NIV is my go to today. That said the majesty of the KJV for high ceremony is unrivalled
    I prefer the Beano. The stories are more realistic, and who wouldn't want to follow the religion of Dennis?
    It’s too self-centred and materialistic to appeal to me personally, but each to their own. Shalom.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_xP said:

    British citizens settled in the EU with legal status guaranteed under withdrawal agreement cannot return home if they are transiting through France. This is what Brexit 31st December means.

    https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1476298001614348293
    https://twitter.com/dudsinbxls/status/1476115805976899584

    I’m sure a clever lawyer can make a case that this is a frustrating action that is tantamount to a treaty breach
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    If we are recommending movies/TV I have two new favourites


    The first is "Dopesick" - an eight part Disney/Hulu miniseries about the rise of opioid abuse in the USA, punted by Big Pharma and the Sackler Family (who really are represented as comic book Jewish villains, almost to the point of anti-Semitism, and yet by all accounts the portrait is realistic). The narrative jumps around time wise, to an annoying extent, but the emotional power builds, as well. Compelling, and harrowing

    The other is "The Great". A riotous, ribald, often fictional romp through the rise and rise of Catherine the Great of Russia. Expect lots of swearing, nudity, eye-gouging, scatological humour, mummified queens and death. It is of course full of made-up stories and dialogue, and yet from my reading of Russian history, it is also quite a faithful depiction of the lurid insanity of the Russian upper classes and their orgiastic drinking/fighting during the time of Peter the Great and his daughter-in-law Catherine. Brilliant fun.

    I got Empire of Pain for Christmas, and am looking forward to reading it.
    The American pharmaceutical industry is a strange strange thing. Capable of incredible breakthroughs and great scientific achievements, but Jesus there is a darkside. A streak of outright evil. Dopesick explains it deftly and movingly
    The Sacklers are representative of no one but themselves
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.

    So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different

    Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
    I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
    That's not the same thing, is it?
    My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.

    What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
    You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
    I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.

    And with that, good night.
    But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.

    Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.

    This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
    The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
    By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
    Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
    Travel from the UK to France

    URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU

    Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.


    https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/travelling-with-us/latest/covid-19/#foca
    So they can go by train, but not by car.

    Opportunity for some enterprising young French unemployed person
  • The reason why the LibDems were so successful in the North Shropshire by-election is precisely because it was a by-election. Although they can dream of leapfrogging over Labour in similar circumstances across the country in a General Election, they just don't have the resources to do do. Whilst Labour has got a workforce in depth in virtually every seat, and can mount a credible winning campaign in every target marginal, the LibDems can't. They won North Shropshire by mobilising their (scanty) workforce from across the country and concentrating it all in one place, thereby giving the impression of a greater workforce than they really have. In a General Election, they'll be lucky if they can get enough activists into all their obvious target seats, let alone all the other North Shropshires.
This discussion has been closed.