'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Yes, there's a huge misunderstanding about how variants occur and evolutionary pathways. The science is really complicated but people just want to boil it down to "give vaccines away" or somehow blame the west, Boris, Trump, the EU or whatever their pet hate is.
There's the opposite too. People making out a fast global vaccine rollout *isn't* important, or is 'pie in the sky' idealism, and advancing junk science or politics to support that claim. Don't mean you, btw, but there's plenty of it about.
But the vaccines are only one part of the equation, all across Africa there's countries throwing vaccine doses away because they've already hit a demand limit for the people they can access easily. Logistics, social media misinformation and idiotic governments are all more important than vaccine supply which is actually something we've resolved, our manufacturing of vaccines across the world is huge and potentially already enough to supply all existing demand.
There's too many people on both sides of the argument who want a simple 140 character answer, but there's no short answer to getting the world vaccinated and supply is a tiny problem compared to anything else.
Just spotted the RSA hospital beds occupied figure has really fallen sharply today (down ~400 to 8.86k) after plateuing for a while. Good news.
Every day I see an update from South Africa, I imagine Dr Angelique Coetzee sitting in her office, looking out at the Gauteng sunshine, gently buffing her nails.
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
2022 could be year that crypto assets eg NFTs face regulatory crackdown. MPs & campaigners are pushing govt to safeguard customers, and I understand regulators are keener for more powers esp in light of marketing to young football fans
I still struggling to get my head around how the now EPL sponsorship deals facilitating of illegal gambling seem to be no problemo....the EPL clubs are literally taking money from companies that provide illegal betting services to the Chinese market and which use Eastern European gangster owned software businesses.
Here in Almeria we live in a small village - under 3k and we have a super restaurant 200 metres from the house and at least a dozen more [ several award winning] within 10 miles where you can eat superbly well for much less than €50 a head including wine. We are near a tourist area but popular with Spanish tourists and even at the height of summer the whole area has probably under 100k of locals and holiday makers. Nearly all of the eating options from tapas to totr offer great quality and value. Apart from the 320 sunny days and fantastic semi-desert terrai it is one of the joys of living here.
Thanks for that. It is 4C with flakes of snow here in London. And we have 2-3 more months of this
It is going to be quite wearing. I am desperate to flee, but everywhere interesting, hot and sunny is either shut or too risky or about to explode with Omicron
Florida is the place to go!
I have considered Florida, but the weather is pleasant rather than great in January
And also I don't find Florida that interesting. Tho I do like the bit around Sanibel island
I keep looking at Sri Lanka, that IS tempting, but will it explode with Omicron?
Madeira? Reliably warm plus a reassuring 'red telephone box' vibe that might appeal?
I'm really not the type who needs a "red telephone box vibe". I like the opposite. Radical weirdness. One of my greatest ever trips was to Greenland, for exactly that reason. It is intensely weird, and about as different to the Primrose Hill borders as it is possible to get. Wonderful
However it's a bit dark and cold right now in Greenland, as it is on the rugged borders of Primrose Hill, and I want real warmth
Luxor is a possible, but again Covid worries...
There should be an app which tells you Where Right Now Is Sunny and Hot? Giving you all the choices
OK I am now waffling on ineffectively. Time to do some New Year book-keeping. Later, PB.....
I've never known a forum where so many apparently different posters have all been to Greenland...
Here in Almeria we live in a small village - under 3k and we have a super restaurant 200 metres from the house and at least a dozen more [ several award winning] within 10 miles where you can eat superbly well for much less than €50 a head including wine. We are near a tourist area but popular with Spanish tourists and even at the height of summer the whole area has probably under 100k of locals and holiday makers. Nearly all of the eating options from tapas to totr offer great quality and value. Apart from the 320 sunny days and fantastic semi-desert terrai it is one of the joys of living here.
Thanks for that. It is 4C with flakes of snow here in London. And we have 2-3 more months of this
It is going to be quite wearing. I am desperate to flee, but everywhere interesting, hot and sunny is either shut or too risky or about to explode with Omicron
4 C is luxury and too boot as I am still testing positive after 9-10 days, my wife insists all windows are open so I do not infect her. It is like Siberia indoors even with heating turned up.
I though the infectiousness was early on in the illness inc before symptoms? After 9-10 you won't be infections even though you are testing positive. Can someone clarify?
I am still positive on LFT tests, and got it probably just day or two before Christmas , Christmas day at very latest. Not sure whether you can test positive on LFT but not be infectious enough to pass it on.
Here in Almeria we live in a small village - under 3k and we have a super restaurant 200 metres from the house and at least a dozen more [ several award winning] within 10 miles where you can eat superbly well for much less than €50 a head including wine. We are near a tourist area but popular with Spanish tourists and even at the height of summer the whole area has probably under 100k of locals and holiday makers. Nearly all of the eating options from tapas to totr offer great quality and value. Apart from the 320 sunny days and fantastic semi-desert terrai it is one of the joys of living here.
Thanks for that. It is 4C with flakes of snow here in London. And we have 2-3 more months of this
It is going to be quite wearing. I am desperate to flee, but everywhere interesting, hot and sunny is either shut or too risky or about to explode with Omicron
Florida is the place to go!
I have considered Florida, but the weather is pleasant rather than great in January
And also I don't find Florida that interesting. Tho I do like the bit around Sanibel island
I keep looking at Sri Lanka, that IS tempting, but will it explode with Omicron?
Madeira? Reliably warm plus a reassuring 'red telephone box' vibe that might appeal?
I'm really not the type who needs a "red telephone box vibe". I like the opposite. Radical weirdness. One of my greatest ever trips was to Greenland, for exactly that reason. It is intensely weird, and about as different to the Primrose Hill borders as it is possible to get. Wonderful
However it's a bit dark and cold right now in Greenland, as it is on the rugged borders of Primrose Hill, and I want real warmth
Luxor is a possible, but again Covid worries...
There should be an app which tells you Where Right Now Is Sunny and Hot? Giving you all the choices
OK I am now waffling on ineffectively. Time to do some New Year book-keeping. Later, PB.....
I've never known a forum where so many apparently different posters have all been to Greenland...
Yes, more PBers have visited Greenland than there are residents of Greenland.
For my two pennth, the best meal I have ever had was at a restaurant that doesn't even have a michelin star. It wasn't cheap, but it certainly isn't the most expensive meal I have had.
Most of my best meals have been at non-Michelin places
Random top ten (I could choose eighty more)
Eating at Marco Pierre White's very first place, in south London (forget where) - before he had a star, wow
A crab and asparagus dish in a restaurant made from a garage outside Chiang Mai, Thailand
A beef massaman curry on a beach in Ko Tao, also Thailand
Eating at the first Barrafina off the Strand
Osyters and foie gras and gingerbread in some brilliant old school brasserie in Nantes, France
Dinner by Heston (that has a star or two)
A steak at G W Bush's favourite steak restaurant in Austin Texas
Another steak at Cabana Las Lilas in Buenos Aires
Tiny gnocchi in a private restaurant on a private vineyard on the island of Pantelleria, Italy
Some sardines, recently, in a scruffy cafe above a fish market in Sagres, Portugal
How much of this is about company, location, mood, weather, post-coital bliss - rather than food? At least half of it
I am not sure where to even begin with best food, overall.
For steak, I do. The Tasting Room in Frederick MD does a filet mignon that is the best I have had anywhere, including the best that Buenos Aires or Texas has to offer.
For Indian food, sorry to say that my best experience has been neither in India nor in the UK, but in downtown Washington DC. Rasika (chef was in London prior to moving to the US). Their palak chaat is the most delicious single Indian dish I have ever eaten. For Northern Indian, Bukhara in New York used to be the place.
For the most inventive, surprising and incredible meal I've ever eaten, Contra in lower Manhattan wins: https://contra.nyc It has one star.
For the single ingredient of a dish, Brian Voltaggio at Volt (now sadly gone) outdid everything else I have ever experienced. He does molecular cuisine, which is not my favorite style. But he made 'caviar' out of virgin olive oil. It was the most intensely pleasurable tasting experience of my life to date.
I realize this is a very US-centric list. I have had many spectacular meals in France, Italy, the UK, and Switzerland. But none of them truly stand out from the rest.
I must be incredibly unlucky because 98% of my eating experiences in America are mediocre or worse. And I have been there a LOT, and all over, and in all kinds of joints, from top NYC starred places to innovative California pop-ups to famous BBQ shacks in the Deep South
The one exception is Louisiana especially New Orleans. The food there is consistently great, and they don't do the off-puttingly enormous servings you commonly get in the USA. How can such a rich country still believe "great food = tons of food"?
It really is a problem in the States.
When touring and absolutely having to eat in a regular kind of place, I became used to ordering only an 'appetiser' – to the absolute bafflement of the waitresses, who tried to insist I order a full meal, then take the several metric tonnes of waste with me, cold, in a bag. I declined.
I learned to avoid roadside places. Go slightly hungry all day, then park up in a 'heritage' town centre hotel somewhere and find a proper restaurant, where I had the opportunity to pay three times as much for a third of the volume.
Yes, it's a major problem away from the big coastal cities. And you can't even go into a supermarket and whip up a picnic because all the cheese and cold meats are horrible or non existent. I still remember, with a shudder, my visit to the enormous WalMart in Natchez Mississippi. They had a far better selection of sub machine guns than blue cheese. In fact they didn't have ANY blue cheese
We forget how fortunate we are in the UK (in this regard), you can go to a Tesco or M&S in Stornoway or north Norfolk or remote Devon or Anglesey - and it will reliably have a nice selection of salamis, hams, cheeses, breads, wines, smoked fish, from all over Europe/the world - enough for a very nice picnic in your hotel room, if that's what you fancy
And then there's America's fucking tipping culture!!!
But I don't want to be down on America. The people are splendidly kind, the beer is now excellent, and the landscapes some of the best on the planet. The National Parks are THE best on the planet
Bit unfair on US supermarkets, they have got better...obviously not Walmart, but in addition to Whole Foods you also big chains like Publix.
They are OK in big cities, and largely shite everywhere else unless quantity is the metric. Same with the restaurants. They also have nothing remotely like Sainsburys Local / Little Waitrose / Carrefour Market / Petit Casino etc that combines convenience with decent produce (outside NYC).
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
I think that all the contenders will want to wait until COVID is out of the way....
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in , you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you th Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
more bollox
And your reasons for calling it bollox? Oh you don't have any because you've pickled your brain.
Well smartarse , yet another clown who likes to insult through their ignorance. I have forgotten more than your tiny brain will ever know for sure. Since you wrote the bollox and have no clue , I can presume you have little brain to pickle, and prefer just to write bollox. The SNP voted against as Labour had ratted on their promise of a referendum and the SNP had said they would not have that and so gave Labour their just desserts. I happened to know that but any less than intelligent person could have easily checked the facts before they ignorantly posted rubbish and then had the temerity to question someone who knew the answer. You are far from as smart as you think you are sunshine and your use of old Scottish tropes says plenty about you, inferiority complex.
Sorry but what was you actual point within the diatribe of insults that merely emphasis how bad you are at creating an argument.
Where does your idea of a referendum appear from - the entire point in all posts so far is that 1 wasn't offered - as Labour once they have x amounts of seats can rule without explicit SNP support because the SNP can hardly vote with the Tories can they?
+ there is zero chance of a Scottish referendum being included within a Labour Manifesto so I can't see where your "promise" is coming from in the first place.
As I said diatribe full of insults containing an ill informed thought that has no basis within the thesis being discussed
Says the clown who accuses me of being a drunkard. They had promised they would hold a referendum and then stated categorically that they would not, is that not clear enough for you. Slightly better than your " they voted against something or other" pish. Jog on now and give me peace , and make it a very long one.
When did they promise a referendum and under what leader?
When SKS offers you one then you have a valid argument until then it's another of your pipe dreams.
As for calling you a drunkard, when else do people resort to insults before 10pm at night on a web forum...
The only person who does it on this site is you and being frank you exhibit a lot of habits of a drunk...
Jog on loser
So you've not been offered anything by SKS - thought as much.
Yep the drink has pickled your brain - allowing very brief moments of clarity within a sea of pointless insults.
Just for you arsehole
Scotland Act 1978 The government returned to the issue of devolution in November 1977. Separate bills for Scotland and Wales were published and support from the Liberals was obtained. In spite of continued opposition requiring another guillotine motion, the Bills were passed.[1] During the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 through Parliament, an amendment introduced by Labour MP George Cunningham added a requirement that the bill had to be approved by 40% of the total registered electorate, as well as a simple majority (50% + 1).
So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher.
Secondly all the oil money has now gone (which is annoying and explains the attacks but the damage cannot be undone).
Personally I would be very happy for Scotland to inherit what is left of the North Sea Oil Industry (from memory it's mainly decommissioning costs that haven't been saved for and that the Government is going to cut corners to reduce).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories , I proved that as bollox ,you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you then start wittering about oil. Where to next, best to go and practice Scottish insults with your bellend pal foremain. As I said previously Jog on.
Just to clarify for your amoeba sized brain Malcolm , I don't insult people because they are Scottish. I leave that kind of racism to nationalists like yourself. I insult you, not because you are Scottish, or even because you are a nationalist bigot, but because you are an obnoxious cunt.
Thought I would clear that up for you in language that even you might understand.
I know I really shouldn't like a post with the C word contained within it but at this point it's valid.
The issue here is that MalcolmG is now the pub bore. Nothing of interest to say so hits the insults because that is all he's got left.
I do however love the fact he confused 1978 so pre Thatcher so ancient history into became 1978 the SNP ensured Thatcher was elected.
There's no doubt Blair was very successful and an election winning machine who destroyed the Tories for a decade.
If electoral success is the criteria for a Knighthood then by all means give him one but I trust when the time comes OGH will also support a Knighthood for "Sir" Boris Johnson (London Mayor twice, won the the EU referendum for LEAVE and gave the Tories their biggest majority in a general election since 1987) ?
Yes. On topic. No libdem should support bomber Blair, who lied about need for a war that killed millions of people. It’s as simply put as that.
I came in from school and watched fireworks called shock and awe, and all I could think was people under that war just wanting to do honest days work, put food on table for their kids, enjoy their lives and their holidays and birthdays. And the Blair government and Americans were so smug about what they were doing I have never felt so angry. I charged upstairs and slammed bedroom door. It’s amazing what you clearly remember.
I am sure you reacted the same way when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds.
I'm fairly sure that no LibDem has ever supported giving the late Saddam Hussein the order of the Garter.
Surely he would have been a Bath(ist), anyway?
Amusing post, but if you are genuinely suggesting Blair is the equivalent of Saddam that is ludicrous. I was never a fan of Blair, and never voted for him, but the reality people have to get their heads around is that leaders have to make decisions on things that the rest of us would find unpalatable. Those that claim Blair is a war criminal are just fucking pathetic and they demean the victims of war crimes. Blair made significant mistakes, but a war criminal he is not. He is worthy of the knighthood for all the reasons Mike gave in the header.
I think he is too - but only because I don't think he lied to get the war approved. It was a dreadful decision but for me it makes all the difference that it was hubris that led him there rather than mendacity. If I thought he lied - in which I count knowing material exaggeration - I'd be on the War Criminal side of life and upset to see him knighted.
One of the most unfortunate things about Blair was his propensity to dissemble, lie if you like, in order to get things done that he thought were right. I think he genuinely thought that Iraq was a threat and/or that the UK/USA alliance was so important that we had to be part of the post 9/11 response. These are very weighty decisions that he almost certainly got wrong when viewed through the telescope of Captain Hindsight. For all his faults, Blair is not a "do nothing kinda guy" to twist his phrase. I suspect he still believes he did the right thing on balance.
For my two pennth, the best meal I have ever had was at a restaurant that doesn't even have a michelin star. It wasn't cheap, but it certainly isn't the most expensive meal I have had.
Most of my best meals have been at non-Michelin places
Random top ten (I could choose eighty more)
Eating at Marco Pierre White's very first place, in south London (forget where) - before he had a star, wow
A crab and asparagus dish in a restaurant made from a garage outside Chiang Mai, Thailand
A beef massaman curry on a beach in Ko Tao, also Thailand
Eating at the first Barrafina off the Strand
Osyters and foie gras and gingerbread in some brilliant old school brasserie in Nantes, France
Dinner by Heston (that has a star or two)
A steak at G W Bush's favourite steak restaurant in Austin Texas
Another steak at Cabana Las Lilas in Buenos Aires
Tiny gnocchi in a private restaurant on a private vineyard on the island of Pantelleria, Italy
Some sardines, recently, in a scruffy cafe above a fish market in Sagres, Portugal
How much of this is about company, location, mood, weather, post-coital bliss - rather than food? At least half of it
I am not sure where to even begin with best food, overall.
For steak, I do. The Tasting Room in Frederick MD does a filet mignon that is the best I have had anywhere, including the best that Buenos Aires or Texas has to offer.
For Indian food, sorry to say that my best experience has been neither in India nor in the UK, but in downtown Washington DC. Rasika (chef was in London prior to moving to the US). Their palak chaat is the most delicious single Indian dish I have ever eaten. For Northern Indian, Bukhara in New York used to be the place.
For the most inventive, surprising and incredible meal I've ever eaten, Contra in lower Manhattan wins: https://contra.nyc It has one star.
For the single ingredient of a dish, Brian Voltaggio at Volt (now sadly gone) outdid everything else I have ever experienced. He does molecular cuisine, which is not my favorite style. But he made 'caviar' out of virgin olive oil. It was the most intensely pleasurable tasting experience of my life to date.
I realize this is a very US-centric list. I have had many spectacular meals in France, Italy, the UK, and Switzerland. But none of them truly stand out from the rest.
I must be incredibly unlucky because 98% of my eating experiences in America are mediocre or worse. And I have been there a LOT, and all over, and in all kinds of joints, from top NYC starred places to innovative California pop-ups to famous BBQ shacks in the Deep South
The one exception is Louisiana especially New Orleans. The food there is consistently great, and they don't do the off-puttingly enormous servings you commonly get in the USA. How can such a rich country still believe "great food = tons of food"?
It really is a problem in the States.
When touring and absolutely having to eat in a regular kind of place, I became used to ordering only an 'appetiser' – to the absolute bafflement of the waitresses, who tried to insist I order a full meal, then take the several metric tonnes of waste with me, cold, in a bag. I declined.
I learned to avoid roadside places. Go slightly hungry all day, then park up in a 'heritage' town centre hotel somewhere and find a proper restaurant, where I had the opportunity to pay three times as much for a third of the volume.
Yes, it's a major problem away from the big coastal cities. And you can't even go into a supermarket and whip up a picnic because all the cheese and cold meats are horrible or non existent. I still remember, with a shudder, my visit to the enormous WalMart in Natchez Mississippi. They had a far better selection of sub machine guns than blue cheese. In fact they didn't have ANY blue cheese
We forget how fortunate we are in the UK (in this regard), you can go to a Tesco or M&S in Stornoway or north Norfolk or remote Devon or Anglesey - and it will reliably have a nice selection of salamis, hams, cheeses, breads, wines, smoked fish, from all over Europe/the world - enough for a very nice picnic in your hotel room, if that's what you fancy
And then there's America's fucking tipping culture!!!
But I don't want to be down on America. The people are splendidly kind, the beer is now excellent, and the landscapes some of the best on the planet. The National Parks are THE best on the planet
Bit unfair on US supermarkets, they have got better...obviously not Walmart, but in addition to Whole Foods you also big chains like Publix.
They are OK in big cities, and largely shite everywhere else unless quantity is the metric. Same with the restaurants. They also have nothing remotely like Sainsburys Local / Little Waitrose / Carrefour Market / Petit Casino etc that combines convenience with decent produce (outside NYC).
Small town rural America is the really bad....I have been to countless places where the choice is a Walmart Super Centre or a crappy Safeways. You see all the fresh food grown around you, but you can't buy it in the Walmart....
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
For my two pennth, the best meal I have ever had was at a restaurant that doesn't even have a michelin star. It wasn't cheap, but it certainly isn't the most expensive meal I have had.
Most of my best meals have been at non-Michelin places
Random top ten (I could choose eighty more)
Eating at Marco Pierre White's very first place, in south London (forget where) - before he had a star, wow
A crab and asparagus dish in a restaurant made from a garage outside Chiang Mai, Thailand
A beef massaman curry on a beach in Ko Tao, also Thailand
Eating at the first Barrafina off the Strand
Osyters and foie gras and gingerbread in some brilliant old school brasserie in Nantes, France
Dinner by Heston (that has a star or two)
A steak at G W Bush's favourite steak restaurant in Austin Texas
Another steak at Cabana Las Lilas in Buenos Aires
Tiny gnocchi in a private restaurant on a private vineyard on the island of Pantelleria, Italy
Some sardines, recently, in a scruffy cafe above a fish market in Sagres, Portugal
How much of this is about company, location, mood, weather, post-coital bliss - rather than food? At least half of it
I am not sure where to even begin with best food, overall.
For steak, I do. The Tasting Room in Frederick MD does a filet mignon that is the best I have had anywhere, including the best that Buenos Aires or Texas has to offer.
For Indian food, sorry to say that my best experience has been neither in India nor in the UK, but in downtown Washington DC. Rasika (chef was in London prior to moving to the US). Their palak chaat is the most delicious single Indian dish I have ever eaten. For Northern Indian, Bukhara in New York used to be the place.
For the most inventive, surprising and incredible meal I've ever eaten, Contra in lower Manhattan wins: https://contra.nyc It has one star.
For the single ingredient of a dish, Brian Voltaggio at Volt (now sadly gone) outdid everything else I have ever experienced. He does molecular cuisine, which is not my favorite style. But he made 'caviar' out of virgin olive oil. It was the most intensely pleasurable tasting experience of my life to date.
I realize this is a very US-centric list. I have had many spectacular meals in France, Italy, the UK, and Switzerland. But none of them truly stand out from the rest.
I must be incredibly unlucky because 98% of my eating experiences in America are mediocre or worse. And I have been there a LOT, and all over, and in all kinds of joints, from top NYC starred places to innovative California pop-ups to famous BBQ shacks in the Deep South
The one exception is Louisiana especially New Orleans. The food there is consistently great, and they don't do the off-puttingly enormous servings you commonly get in the USA. How can such a rich country still believe "great food = tons of food"?
It really is a problem in the States.
When touring and absolutely having to eat in a regular kind of place, I became used to ordering only an 'appetiser' – to the absolute bafflement of the waitresses, who tried to insist I order a full meal, then take the several metric tonnes of waste with me, cold, in a bag. I declined.
I learned to avoid roadside places. Go slightly hungry all day, then park up in a 'heritage' town centre hotel somewhere and find a proper restaurant, where I had the opportunity to pay three times as much for a third of the volume.
Yes, it's a major problem away from the big coastal cities. And you can't even go into a supermarket and whip up a picnic because all the cheese and cold meats are horrible or non existent. I still remember, with a shudder, my visit to the enormous WalMart in Natchez Mississippi. They had a far better selection of sub machine guns than blue cheese. In fact they didn't have ANY blue cheese
We forget how fortunate we are in the UK (in this regard), you can go to a Tesco or M&S in Stornoway or north Norfolk or remote Devon or Anglesey - and it will reliably have a nice selection of salamis, hams, cheeses, breads, wines, smoked fish, from all over Europe/the world - enough for a very nice picnic in your hotel room, if that's what you fancy
And then there's America's fucking tipping culture!!!
But I don't want to be down on America. The people are splendidly kind, the beer is now excellent, and the landscapes some of the best on the planet. The National Parks are THE best on the planet
Interestingly, I find you can eat well in the national park areas – I remember some sumptuous dinners in the Colorado Rockies, and also in the Shenandoah.
You are also not going to fare well if you think you can come to the US and eat well eating what you'd eat in England. If you're looking for good cheese or bread, with few exceptions, the US is not the place for you.
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Conservative 31% - Labour 18%
So? That doesn’t mean anything.
I’m talking about absence of policy and direction Big G and the need for government to have some or it certain comes a cropper. Are you happy to debate with me on what the governments economic policies are?
Here in Almeria we live in a small village - under 3k and we have a super restaurant 200 metres from the house and at least a dozen more [ several award winning] within 10 miles where you can eat superbly well for much less than €50 a head including wine. We are near a tourist area but popular with Spanish tourists and even at the height of summer the whole area has probably under 100k of locals and holiday makers. Nearly all of the eating options from tapas to totr offer great quality and value. Apart from the 320 sunny days and fantastic semi-desert terrai it is one of the joys of living here.
Thanks for that. It is 4C with flakes of snow here in London. And we have 2-3 more months of this
It is going to be quite wearing. I am desperate to flee, but everywhere interesting, hot and sunny is either shut or too risky or about to explode with Omicron
4 C is luxury and too boot as I am still testing positive after 9-10 days, my wife insists all windows are open so I do not infect her. It is like Siberia indoors even with heating turned up.
I though the infectiousness was early on in the illness inc before symptoms? After 9-10 you won't be infections even though you are testing positive. Can someone clarify?
I am still positive on LFT tests, and got it probably just day or two before Christmas , Christmas day at very latest. Not sure whether you can test positive on LFT but not be infectious enough to pass it on.
Given how a LFT is sourced, I would, like you, be thinking infectious enough that I may pass it on.
Post war PMs who were appointed Order of the Garter:
Churchill Eden Attlee Wilson Callaghan Heath Thatcher Major Blair
So Douglas-Home didn't get one - which I suppose raises the question of whether Brown will. Cameron definitely should, May maybe, Johnson we'll see. Perhaps Brenda's put those in the tray marked "Charles".
For my two pennth, the best meal I have ever had was at a restaurant that doesn't even have a michelin star. It wasn't cheap, but it certainly isn't the most expensive meal I have had.
Most of my best meals have been at non-Michelin places
Random top ten (I could choose eighty more)
Eating at Marco Pierre White's very first place, in south London (forget where) - before he had a star, wow
A crab and asparagus dish in a restaurant made from a garage outside Chiang Mai, Thailand
A beef massaman curry on a beach in Ko Tao, also Thailand
Eating at the first Barrafina off the Strand
Osyters and foie gras and gingerbread in some brilliant old school brasserie in Nantes, France
Dinner by Heston (that has a star or two)
A steak at G W Bush's favourite steak restaurant in Austin Texas
Another steak at Cabana Las Lilas in Buenos Aires
Tiny gnocchi in a private restaurant on a private vineyard on the island of Pantelleria, Italy
Some sardines, recently, in a scruffy cafe above a fish market in Sagres, Portugal
How much of this is about company, location, mood, weather, post-coital bliss - rather than food? At least half of it
I am not sure where to even begin with best food, overall.
For steak, I do. The Tasting Room in Frederick MD does a filet mignon that is the best I have had anywhere, including the best that Buenos Aires or Texas has to offer.
For Indian food, sorry to say that my best experience has been neither in India nor in the UK, but in downtown Washington DC. Rasika (chef was in London prior to moving to the US). Their palak chaat is the most delicious single Indian dish I have ever eaten. For Northern Indian, Bukhara in New York used to be the place.
For the most inventive, surprising and incredible meal I've ever eaten, Contra in lower Manhattan wins: https://contra.nyc It has one star.
For the single ingredient of a dish, Brian Voltaggio at Volt (now sadly gone) outdid everything else I have ever experienced. He does molecular cuisine, which is not my favorite style. But he made 'caviar' out of virgin olive oil. It was the most intensely pleasurable tasting experience of my life to date.
I realize this is a very US-centric list. I have had many spectacular meals in France, Italy, the UK, and Switzerland. But none of them truly stand out from the rest.
I must be incredibly unlucky because 98% of my eating experiences in America are mediocre or worse. And I have been there a LOT, and all over, and in all kinds of joints, from top NYC starred places to innovative California pop-ups to famous BBQ shacks in the Deep South
The one exception is Louisiana especially New Orleans. The food there is consistently great, and they don't do the off-puttingly enormous servings you commonly get in the USA. How can such a rich country still believe "great food = tons of food"?
It really is a problem in the States.
When touring and absolutely having to eat in a regular kind of place, I became used to ordering only an 'appetiser' – to the absolute bafflement of the waitresses, who tried to insist I order a full meal, then take the several metric tonnes of waste with me, cold, in a bag. I declined.
I learned to avoid roadside places. Go slightly hungry all day, then park up in a 'heritage' town centre hotel somewhere and find a proper restaurant, where I had the opportunity to pay three times as much for a third of the volume.
Yes, it's a major problem away from the big coastal cities. And you can't even go into a supermarket and whip up a picnic because all the cheese and cold meats are horrible or non existent. I still remember, with a shudder, my visit to the enormous WalMart in Natchez Mississippi. They had a far better selection of sub machine guns than blue cheese. In fact they didn't have ANY blue cheese
We forget how fortunate we are in the UK (in this regard), you can go to a Tesco or M&S in Stornoway or north Norfolk or remote Devon or Anglesey - and it will reliably have a nice selection of salamis, hams, cheeses, breads, wines, smoked fish, from all over Europe/the world - enough for a very nice picnic in your hotel room, if that's what you fancy
And then there's America's fucking tipping culture!!!
But I don't want to be down on America. The people are splendidly kind, the beer is now excellent, and the landscapes some of the best on the planet. The National Parks are THE best on the planet
Except you have to pay to get into them. Or at least you are supposed to; often it's just an honesty box at the bottom of a trail.
Until you get to the Rockies and deserts, a lot of the landscapes can be underwhelming, largely, I concluded, because all of the hills and mountains are covered in trees and hence all look the same. And of course there are large areas with next to no landscape at all. The prairies, however, I did quite like.
That is exactly the problem with the entire Eastern 3rd of the US. It's all forested, usually deciduous, and as you say it makes the mountains look very similar from Vermont down to Georgia. I did a road trip a few years ago from Philadephia through the Appalachians along the blue ridge parkway eventually into Alabama, and while the human geography was fascinating the landscape was underwhelming. Big contrast with the West where everything is vast and incredible.
Post war PMs who were appointed Order of the Garter:
Churchill Eden Attlee Wilson Callaghan Heath Thatcher Major Blair
So Douglas-Home didn't get one - which I suppose raises the question of whether Brown will. Cameron definitely should, May maybe, Johnson we'll see. Perhaps Brenda's put those in the tray marked "Charles".
Wouldn't Brown get appointed Order of the Thistle?
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Mega rich friend of mine took me to Kaspar’s at the Savoy for a Xmas lunch about four/five years ago
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
Unfortunately (for me) he’s now completely sober
Were you not embarrassed to let him pay whether rich or not.
Never be embarrased, to let someone seriously rich buy you lunch. Especially those from cultures where the extravagant display of wealth is part of the personality, and they get off on how much they can drop in a restaurant in a couple of hours.
Bad bad karma in Scotland if you don't buy your round, you can stoop no lower other than spitting in someone's face.
Indeed. I think Scots can smell that type of rsolery off Johnson..
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
I think that all the contenders will want to wait until COVID is out of the way....
Firstly, when is that? Secondly, why? Thirdly, if you are in the Conservative Party or vote for it 4th Jan 2022, surely you want a economic strategy and PM who can articulate it ASAP?
Post war PMs who were appointed Order of the Garter:
Churchill Eden Attlee Wilson Callaghan Heath Thatcher Major Blair
So Douglas-Home didn't get one - which I suppose raises the question of whether Brown will. Cameron definitely should, May maybe, Johnson we'll see. Perhaps Brenda's put those in the tray marked "Charles".
That's because Douglas-Home had the Order of the Thistle, the Scottish equivalent of the Garter and as I understand it you cannot have both orders.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in , you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you th Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
more bollox
And your reasons for calling it bollox? Oh you don't have any because you've pickled your brain.
Well smartarse , yet another clown who likes to insult through their ignorance. I have forgotten more than your tiny brain will ever know for sure. Since you wrote the bollox and have no clue , I can presume you have little brain to pickle, and prefer just to write bollox. The SNP voted against as Labour had ratted on their promise of a referendum and the SNP had said they would not have that and so gave Labour their just desserts. I happened to know that but any less than intelligent person could have easily checked the facts before they ignorantly posted rubbish and then had the temerity to question someone who knew the answer. You are far from as smart as you think you are sunshine and your use of old Scottish tropes says plenty about you, inferiority complex.
Sorry but what was you actual point within the diatribe of insults that merely emphasis how bad you are at creating an argument.
Where does your idea of a referendum appear from - the entire point in all posts so far is that 1 wasn't offered - as Labour once they have x amounts of seats can rule without explicit SNP support because the SNP can hardly vote with the Tories can they?
+ there is zero chance of a Scottish referendum being included within a Labour Manifesto so I can't see where your "promise" is coming from in the first place.
As I said diatribe full of insults containing an ill informed thought that has no basis within the thesis being discussed
Says the clown who accuses me of being a drunkard. They had promised they would hold a referendum and then stated categorically that they would not, is that not clear enough for you. Slightly better than your " they voted against something or other" pish. Jog on now and give me peace , and make it a very long one.
When did they promise a referendum and under what leader?
When SKS offers you one then you have a valid argument until then it's another of your pipe dreams.
As for calling you a drunkard, when else do people resort to insults before 10pm at night on a web forum...
The only person who does it on this site is you and being frank you exhibit a lot of habits of a drunk...
Jog on loser
So you've not been offered anything by SKS - thought as much.
Yep the drink has pickled your brain - allowing very brief moments of clarity within a sea of pointless insults.
Just for you arsehole
Scotland Act 1978 The government returned to the issue of devolution in November 1977. Separate bills for Scotland and Wales were published and support from the Liberals was obtained. In spite of continued opposition requiring another guillotine motion, the Bills were passed.[1] During the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 through Parliament, an amendment introduced by Labour MP George Cunningham added a requirement that the bill had to be approved by 40% of the total registered electorate, as well as a simple majority (50% + 1).
So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher.
Secondly all the oil money has now gone (which is annoying and explains the attacks but the damage cannot be undone).
Personally I would be very happy for Scotland to inherit what is left of the North Sea Oil Industry (from memory it's mainly decommissioning costs that haven't been saved for and that the Government is going to cut corners to reduce).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories , I proved that as bollox ,you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you then start wittering about oil. Where to next, best to go and practice Scottish insults with your bellend pal foremain. As I said previously Jog on.
Just to clarify for your amoeba sized brain Malcolm , I don't insult people because they are Scottish. I leave that kind of racism to nationalists like yourself. I insult you, not because you are Scottish, or even because you are a nationalist bigot, but because you are an obnoxious cunt.
Thought I would clear that up for you in language that even you might understand.
I know I really shouldn't like a post with the C word contained within it but at this point it's valid.
The issue here is that MalcolmG is now the pub bore. Nothing of interest to say so hits the insults because that is all he's got left.
I do however love the fact he confused 1978 so pre Thatcher so ancient history into became 1978 the SNP ensured Thatcher was elected.
I wouldn't normally use the word, but I am very bored with him, although my amateur psychology interest is piqued. It is rare to see someone so regularly suffering from psychological projection. He throws out insult after insult but cannot articulate an even slightly cogent argument and then calls other people "thick as mince". Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
Here in Almeria we live in a small village - under 3k and we have a super restaurant 200 metres from the house and at least a dozen more [ several award winning] within 10 miles where you can eat superbly well for much less than €50 a head including wine. We are near a tourist area but popular with Spanish tourists and even at the height of summer the whole area has probably under 100k of locals and holiday makers. Nearly all of the eating options from tapas to totr offer great quality and value. Apart from the 320 sunny days and fantastic semi-desert terrai it is one of the joys of living here.
Thanks for that. It is 4C with flakes of snow here in London. And we have 2-3 more months of this
It is going to be quite wearing. I am desperate to flee, but everywhere interesting, hot and sunny is either shut or too risky or about to explode with Omicron
4 C is luxury and too boot as I am still testing positive after 9-10 days, my wife insists all windows are open so I do not infect her. It is like Siberia indoors even with heating turned up.
I though the infectiousness was early on in the illness inc before symptoms? After 9-10 you won't be infections even though you are testing positive. Can someone clarify?
@stocky Stocky , from web mind you but : People who have COVID-19 can infect others from around 2 days before symptoms start, and for up to 10 days after.
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Conservative 31% - Labour 18%
How did the missing 51% answer?
Lot of voters open to persuasion
Not surprising, as the economy has been off the headlines for a long time. Really since around 2014 when the country properly recovered from the recessions following the financial crisis. Since then it's been Public services, Immigration, Brexit, Covid, and most recently supply chain shortages. The economy and household finances have hardly had a look in (thanks in part to Covid measures like JRS). That will change in the next few months with cost of living rises coming to prominence.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
For my two pennth, the best meal I have ever had was at a restaurant that doesn't even have a michelin star. It wasn't cheap, but it certainly isn't the most expensive meal I have had.
Most of my best meals have been at non-Michelin places
Random top ten (I could choose eighty more)
Eating at Marco Pierre White's very first place, in south London (forget where) - before he had a star, wow
A crab and asparagus dish in a restaurant made from a garage outside Chiang Mai, Thailand
A beef massaman curry on a beach in Ko Tao, also Thailand
Eating at the first Barrafina off the Strand
Osyters and foie gras and gingerbread in some brilliant old school brasserie in Nantes, France
Dinner by Heston (that has a star or two)
A steak at G W Bush's favourite steak restaurant in Austin Texas
Another steak at Cabana Las Lilas in Buenos Aires
Tiny gnocchi in a private restaurant on a private vineyard on the island of Pantelleria, Italy
Some sardines, recently, in a scruffy cafe above a fish market in Sagres, Portugal
How much of this is about company, location, mood, weather, post-coital bliss - rather than food? At least half of it
I am not sure where to even begin with best food, overall.
For steak, I do. The Tasting Room in Frederick MD does a filet mignon that is the best I have had anywhere, including the best that Buenos Aires or Texas has to offer.
For Indian food, sorry to say that my best experience has been neither in India nor in the UK, but in downtown Washington DC. Rasika (chef was in London prior to moving to the US). Their palak chaat is the most delicious single Indian dish I have ever eaten. For Northern Indian, Bukhara in New York used to be the place.
For the most inventive, surprising and incredible meal I've ever eaten, Contra in lower Manhattan wins: https://contra.nyc It has one star.
For the single ingredient of a dish, Brian Voltaggio at Volt (now sadly gone) outdid everything else I have ever experienced. He does molecular cuisine, which is not my favorite style. But he made 'caviar' out of virgin olive oil. It was the most intensely pleasurable tasting experience of my life to date.
I realize this is a very US-centric list. I have had many spectacular meals in France, Italy, the UK, and Switzerland. But none of them truly stand out from the rest.
I must be incredibly unlucky because 98% of my eating experiences in America are mediocre or worse. And I have been there a LOT, and all over, and in all kinds of joints, from top NYC starred places to innovative California pop-ups to famous BBQ shacks in the Deep South
The one exception is Louisiana especially New Orleans. The food there is consistently great, and they don't do the off-puttingly enormous servings you commonly get in the USA. How can such a rich country still believe "great food = tons of food"?
It really is a problem in the States.
When touring and absolutely having to eat in a regular kind of place, I became used to ordering only an 'appetiser' – to the absolute bafflement of the waitresses, who tried to insist I order a full meal, then take the several metric tonnes of waste with me, cold, in a bag. I declined.
I learned to avoid roadside places. Go slightly hungry all day, then park up in a 'heritage' town centre hotel somewhere and find a proper restaurant, where I had the opportunity to pay three times as much for a third of the volume.
Yes, it's a major problem away from the big coastal cities. And you can't even go into a supermarket and whip up a picnic because all the cheese and cold meats are horrible or non existent. I still remember, with a shudder, my visit to the enormous WalMart in Natchez Mississippi. They had a far better selection of sub machine guns than blue cheese. In fact they didn't have ANY blue cheese
We forget how fortunate we are in the UK (in this regard), you can go to a Tesco or M&S in Stornoway or north Norfolk or remote Devon or Anglesey - and it will reliably have a nice selection of salamis, hams, cheeses, breads, wines, smoked fish, from all over Europe/the world - enough for a very nice picnic in your hotel room, if that's what you fancy
And then there's America's fucking tipping culture!!!
But I don't want to be down on America. The people are splendidly kind, the beer is now excellent, and the landscapes some of the best on the planet. The National Parks are THE best on the planet
Bit unfair on US supermarkets, they have got better...obviously not Walmart, but in addition to Whole Foods you also big chains like Publix.
They are OK in big cities, and largely shite everywhere else unless quantity is the metric. Same with the restaurants. They also have nothing remotely like Sainsburys Local / Little Waitrose / Carrefour Market / Petit Casino etc that combines convenience with decent produce (outside NYC).
Small town rural America is the really bad....I have been to countless places where the choice is a Walmart Super Centre or a crappy Safeways. You see all the fresh food grown around you, but you can't buy it in the Walmart....
When I was staying in Allentown, PA the only place I could find to buy food to take back to my hotel room was a filling station.
The next day I got some free grub at the Democrats campaign office in return for lending a hand - this was the Obama '08 campaign.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
Specimen date is your friend.....
Unfortunately not so much at the moment:
Edit: Just seen if I filter to England-only then I get some better data.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in , you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you th Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
more bollox
And your reasons for calling it bollox? Oh you don't have any because you've pickled your brain.
Well smartarse , yet another clown who likes to insult through their ignorance. I have forgotten more than your tiny brain will ever know for sure. Since you wrote the bollox and have no clue , I can presume you have little brain to pickle, and prefer just to write bollox. The SNP voted against as Labour had ratted on their promise of a referendum and the SNP had said they would not have that and so gave Labour their just desserts. I happened to know that but any less than intelligent person could have easily checked the facts before they ignorantly posted rubbish and then had the temerity to question someone who knew the answer. You are far from as smart as you think you are sunshine and your use of old Scottish tropes says plenty about you, inferiority complex.
Sorry but what was you actual point within the diatribe of insults that merely emphasis how bad you are at creating an argument.
Where does your idea of a referendum appear from - the entire point in all posts so far is that 1 wasn't offered - as Labour once they have x amounts of seats can rule without explicit SNP support because the SNP can hardly vote with the Tories can they?
+ there is zero chance of a Scottish referendum being included within a Labour Manifesto so I can't see where your "promise" is coming from in the first place.
As I said diatribe full of insults containing an ill informed thought that has no basis within the thesis being discussed
Says the clown who accuses me of being a drunkard. They had promised they would hold a referendum and then stated categorically that they would not, is that not clear enough for you. Slightly better than your " they voted against something or other" pish. Jog on now and give me peace , and make it a very long one.
When did they promise a referendum and under what leader?
When SKS offers you one then you have a valid argument until then it's another of your pipe dreams.
As for calling you a drunkard, when else do people resort to insults before 10pm at night on a web forum...
The only person who does it on this site is you and being frank you exhibit a lot of habits of a drunk...
Jog on loser
So you've not been offered anything by SKS - thought as much.
Yep the drink has pickled your brain - allowing very brief moments of clarity within a sea of pointless insults.
Just for you arsehole
Scotland Act 1978 The government returned to the issue of devolution in November 1977. Separate bills for Scotland and Wales were published and support from the Liberals was obtained. In spite of continued opposition requiring another guillotine motion, the Bills were passed.[1] During the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 through Parliament, an amendment introduced by Labour MP George Cunningham added a requirement that the bill had to be approved by 40% of the total registered electorate, as well as a simple majority (50% + 1).
So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher.
Secondly all the oil money has now gone (which is annoying and explains the attacks but the damage cannot be undone).
Personally I would be very happy for Scotland to inherit what is left of the North Sea Oil Industry (from memory it's mainly decommissioning costs that haven't been saved for and that the Government is going to cut corners to reduce).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories , I proved that as bollox ,you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you then start wittering about oil. Where to next, best to go and practice Scottish insults with your bellend pal foremain. As I said previously Jog on.
Just to clarify for your amoeba sized brain Malcolm , I don't insult people because they are Scottish. I leave that kind of racism to nationalists like yourself. I insult you, not because you are Scottish, or even because you are a nationalist bigot, but because you are an obnoxious cunt.
Thought I would clear that up for you in language that even you might understand.
I know I really shouldn't like a post with the C word contained within it but at this point it's valid.
The issue here is that MalcolmG is now the pub bore. Nothing of interest to say so hits the insults because that is all he's got left.
I do however love the fact he confused 1978 so pre Thatcher so ancient history into became 1978 the SNP ensured Thatcher was elected.
I wouldn't normally use the word, but I am very bored with him, although my amateur psychology interest is piqued. It is rare to see someone so regularly suffering from psychological projection. He throws out insult after insult but cannot articulate an even slightly cogent argument and then calls other people "thick as mince". Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
What I find interesting and concerning is
<from me> So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher. </from me>
<malcolmg> you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories </malcolmg>
Um how do you get from my 2 very simple points to the SNP put Thatcher in.
I'm not someone who thinks they can diagnose dementia from online posts but were I Mrs MalcolmG I would be getting him checked out in a hurry - as the more I look at things the more similar it is to the actions of other people with dementia (insults / violence is used to hide / mask their befuddlement).
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
So I am going to ask a question. I don't claim it is a fair question or perhaps even valid but it is the question that any politician has to be able to answer if they wish to accept your view.
How many people should we allow to die in this country, who could otherwise be saved, so that we can save lives of people in Africa, India, Russia or Poland?
As I say I am not saying it is a fair question but it is the question that cannot be dodged by politicians choosing to follow the route of putting global well being ahead of national well being.
And I know the obvious answer to you and probably to me is that in the long term we might actually save more lives here. But that is not certain and you are asking people to accept deaths now for fewer deaths tomorrow. That is a hard, if not impossible, sell for any politician.
Post war PMs who were appointed Order of the Garter:
Churchill Eden Attlee Wilson Callaghan Heath Thatcher Major Blair
So Douglas-Home didn't get one - which I suppose raises the question of whether Brown will. Cameron definitely should, May maybe, Johnson we'll see. Perhaps Brenda's put those in the tray marked "Charles".
That's because Douglas-Home had the Order of the Thistle, the Scottish equivalent of the Garter and as I understand it you cannot have both orders.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
Specimen date on 29th December is the current peak at 226,144 so it's not ALL because of backfilling.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
Specimen date is your friend.....
Even then, people's reporting and testing habits will be different over the holiday period from normal. It'll be mid-January before we've got reliable week-on-week data again.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
Specimen date is your friend.....
Unfortunately not so much at the moment:
It's better to look at England number right now, I think the other three nations will be fully backfilled by Friday.
Booster jab numbers has really fallen through the floor.
It's demand limitation, anyone who gave a hoot about getting it *quickly* would have been done before the end of the year.
They had a teenager's mother on radio this morning talking about her daughter not being able to get her first dose because she's now caught Covid for the second time. There will be lots of people in the same position waiting to get the booster, but it does look like third dose numbers will do well to get within 10% to second dose.
Two days in a row London admissions below same figure last week. That's something positive at least.
That looks like prevalence has gone down from the heights of 1/15 so fewer incidentals. The actual number of *for* COVID admissions might actually be quite steady.
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Conservative 31% - Labour 18%
So? That doesn’t mean anything.
I’m talking about absence of policy and direction Big G and the need for government to have some or it certain comes a cropper. Are you happy to debate with me on what the governments economic policies are?
So what are they? 🤣
As of now dealing with the pandemic and the hundreds of billions involved makes future policy decisions near impossible to predict but it is noticeably that Rishi is reigning in spending and of course the NI increases in April are unpopular
I expect Rishi to address the high increase in energy costs but I would assume it would be directed to the low paid
However, beyond that I do not believe any party can make firm commitments on tax and spending as nobody knows just where we will be over the coming months
Conservatives are a low tax party and I would be very surprised if tax reductions do not appear from Spring 23
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
I don't doubt that in it's simplest terms your position has some moral power, but it is a question as to whether it would work in practice which I have my doubts. Being seen to do the right thing but causing the pandemic to extend through misdirected wishful thinking could easily kill more than it saves. My faith in the cooperation of nations when so many of them are massively corrupt and untrustworthy is not high.
Here in Almeria we live in a small village - under 3k and we have a super restaurant 200 metres from the house and at least a dozen more [ several award winning] within 10 miles where you can eat superbly well for much less than €50 a head including wine. We are near a tourist area but popular with Spanish tourists and even at the height of summer the whole area has probably under 100k of locals and holiday makers. Nearly all of the eating options from tapas to totr offer great quality and value. Apart from the 320 sunny days and fantastic semi-desert terrai it is one of the joys of living here.
Thanks for that. It is 4C with flakes of snow here in London. And we have 2-3 more months of this
It is going to be quite wearing. I am desperate to flee, but everywhere interesting, hot and sunny is either shut or too risky or about to explode with Omicron
Florida is the place to go!
I have considered Florida, but the weather is pleasant rather than great in January
And also I don't find Florida that interesting. Tho I do like the bit around Sanibel island
I keep looking at Sri Lanka, that IS tempting, but will it explode with Omicron?
Madeira? Reliably warm plus a reassuring 'red telephone box' vibe that might appeal?
I'm really not the type who needs a "red telephone box vibe". I like the opposite. Radical weirdness. One of my greatest ever trips was to Greenland, for exactly that reason. It is intensely weird, and about as different to the Primrose Hill borders as it is possible to get. Wonderful
However it's a bit dark and cold right now in Greenland, as it is on the rugged borders of Primrose Hill, and I want real warmth
Luxor is a possible, but again Covid worries...
There should be an app which tells you Where Right Now Is Sunny and Hot? Giving you all the choices
OK I am now waffling on ineffectively. Time to do some New Year book-keeping. Later, PB.....
I've never known a forum where so many apparently different posters have all been to Greenland...
Yes, more PBers have visited Greenland than there are residents of Greenland.
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Conservative 31% - Labour 18%
How did the missing 51% answer?
AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
This Party has no economic policy nor has this one, which one gets your vote. Lol.
What Big G doesn’t realise, if the government goes through another 6 months without sane financial steering, they are going to be buried in a hole there’s no getting out of. But based on my soundings up here in Yorkshire, conservative supporters do appreciate this now.
I would predict the Conservative leadership campaigns in next couple of months is going to be very educational as the candidates, like Rishi, liz and Jav are going to spell out what Conservative socio economics mean to them with policies to achieve their values.
Labour have a problem here as by summer Conservatives are going to be in a fresh new popular place.
A conservative election win next spring is even possible once failure Boris is quickly dealt with this year.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in , you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you th Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
more bollox
And your reasons for calling it bollox? Oh you don't have any because you've pickled your brain.
Well smartarse , yet another clown who likes to insult through their ignorance. I have forgotten more than your tiny brain will ever know for sure. Since you wrote the bollox and have no clue , I can presume you have little brain to pickle, and prefer just to write bollox. The SNP voted against as Labour had ratted on their promise of a referendum and the SNP had said they would not have that and so gave Labour their just desserts. I happened to know that but any less than intelligent person could have easily checked the facts before they ignorantly posted rubbish and then had the temerity to question someone who knew the answer. You are far from as smart as you think you are sunshine and your use of old Scottish tropes says plenty about you, inferiority complex.
Sorry but what was you actual point within the diatribe of insults that merely emphasis how bad you are at creating an argument.
Where does your idea of a referendum appear from - the entire point in all posts so far is that 1 wasn't offered - as Labour once they have x amounts of seats can rule without explicit SNP support because the SNP can hardly vote with the Tories can they?
+ there is zero chance of a Scottish referendum being included within a Labour Manifesto so I can't see where your "promise" is coming from in the first place.
As I said diatribe full of insults containing an ill informed thought that has no basis within the thesis being discussed
Says the clown who accuses me of being a drunkard. They had promised they would hold a referendum and then stated categorically that they would not, is that not clear enough for you. Slightly better than your " they voted against something or other" pish. Jog on now and give me peace , and make it a very long one.
When did they promise a referendum and under what leader?
When SKS offers you one then you have a valid argument until then it's another of your pipe dreams.
As for calling you a drunkard, when else do people resort to insults before 10pm at night on a web forum...
The only person who does it on this site is you and being frank you exhibit a lot of habits of a drunk...
Jog on loser
So you've not been offered anything by SKS - thought as much.
Yep the drink has pickled your brain - allowing very brief moments of clarity within a sea of pointless insults.
Just for you arsehole
Scotland Act 1978 The government returned to the issue of devolution in November 1977. Separate bills for Scotland and Wales were published and support from the Liberals was obtained. In spite of continued opposition requiring another guillotine motion, the Bills were passed.[1] During the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 through Parliament, an amendment introduced by Labour MP George Cunningham added a requirement that the bill had to be approved by 40% of the total registered electorate, as well as a simple majority (50% + 1).
So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher.
Secondly all the oil money has now gone (which is annoying and explains the attacks but the damage cannot be undone).
Personally I would be very happy for Scotland to inherit what is left of the North Sea Oil Industry (from memory it's mainly decommissioning costs that haven't been saved for and that the Government is going to cut corners to reduce).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories , I proved that as bollox ,you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you then start wittering about oil. Where to next, best to go and practice Scottish insults with your bellend pal foremain. As I said previously Jog on.
Just to clarify for your amoeba sized brain Malcolm , I don't insult people because they are Scottish. I leave that kind of racism to nationalists like yourself. I insult you, not because you are Scottish, or even because you are a nationalist bigot, but because you are an obnoxious cunt.
Thought I would clear that up for you in language that even you might understand.
I know I really shouldn't like a post with the C word contained within it but at this point it's valid.
The issue here is that MalcolmG is now the pub bore. Nothing of interest to say so hits the insults because that is all he's got left.
I do however love the fact he confused 1978 so pre Thatcher so ancient history into became 1978 the SNP ensured Thatcher was elected.
I wouldn't normally use the word, but I am very bored with him, although my amateur psychology interest is piqued. It is rare to see someone so regularly suffering from psychological projection. He throws out insult after insult but cannot articulate an even slightly cogent argument and then calls other people "thick as mince". Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
What I find interesting and concerning is
<from me> So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher. </from me>
<malcolmg> you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories </malcolmg>
Um how do you get from my 2 very simple points to the SNP put Thatcher in.
I'm not someone who thinks they can diagnose dementia from online posts but were I Mrs MalcolmG I would be getting him checked out in a hurry - as the more I look at things the more similar it is to the actions of other people with dementia (insults / violence is used to hide / mask their befuddlement).
Indeed. Perhaps we should leave him alone now though? Until he next makes some infantile comment at least perhaps?
The thing is you can give vaccines to poorer and developing countries but that doesn't mean they will use them.
In some of the African countries they had supply to vaccinate a lot more of their population than they did but they couldn't get their populace to take it up.
So it wasn't always a case of supply, but supply and actual demand for it.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
The only reasonably regular series at the moment is England which has reported:
Jan 1: 162,572 2: 123,547 3: 137,541 4: 148,725
Of course [before anyone starts shouting] what's needed is day of test, not day of reporting - but on the face of it "growing, but not exponentially" seems fair.
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
So I am going to ask a question. I don't claim it is a fair question or perhaps even valid but it is the question that any politician has to be able to answer if they wish to accept your view.
How many people should we allow to die in this country, who could otherwise be saved, so that we can save lives of people in Africa, India, Russia or Poland?
As I say I am not saying it is a fair question but it is the question that cannot be dodged by politicians choosing to follow the route of putting global well being ahead of national well being.
And I know the obvious answer to you and probably to me is that in the long term we might actually save more lives here. But that is not certain and you are asking people to accept deaths now for fewer deaths tomorrow. That is a hard, if not impossible, sell for any politician.
Equally, how many deaths should we allow for each British life saved ?
O/T - There have been a couple of articles about risks in 2022. None particularly great and worth linking. However they often point to similar themes - Inflation, Putin, Chinese aggression, Chinese collapse. My top two worries would be Putin and inflation.
With Putin nothing is likely to happen until the spring - insane to fight in winter. I don't think it's at all likely that anything will happen anyway.
Inflation - I know monetarism apparently conquered inflation, but the evidence since has been really unconvincing. I really don't think economists (or anyone else) understand economics, and inflation really can be bad in so many ways.
Would others here have similar worries and thoughts?
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
I don't doubt that in it's simplest terms your position has some moral power, but it is a question as to whether it would work in practice which I have my doubts. Being seen to do the right thing but causing the pandemic to extend through misdirected wishful thinking could easily kill more than it saves. My faith in the cooperation of nations when so many of them are massively corrupt and untrustworthy is not high.
And my point is that it is the job of JCVI to air these considerations, and the job of HMG to decide which path to take, taking into account those other issues, like domestic politics and expectations, the likelihood that a global approach would work in practice, etc...
To say that it is not within JCVI's remit to advise on how global aspects of the pandemic impact the effectiveness of the UK immunization strategy - and to even opine on how things should be done most efficiently at a global level in a perfect world - is simply wrong.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3h This is getting utterly ridiculous now. When this is over the membership and function of SAGE has to be comprehensively reviewed.
Keir needs to go with the slogan Make Brexit Work.
Yes but how
The UK holds all the cards so it'll be easy for Sir Keir.
To be honest it is a genuine question and needs asking
If Mr Johnson has had his go, though, it's about time someone else tried a different approach.
Before the electorate vote in Starmer the Conservatives can shoot Labours fox by installing a proper Primeminister and government.
Am I the only person on PB.com convinced Boris is about to get vonked? Boris can’t go a fortnight without being all over papers with some shameful scandal. It’s what he is, he can’t change. The chances of a Tory poll lead under him now are zilch.
Anyone think his knew haircut is an improvement? He is beginning to look really ugly old man without trademark hair to hide it.
Anyway, important Conservative Party news. My Dad reckons the Conservative party members he knows are United the party are about to replace Bozo now because they need to get proper economic policy’s and financial policy for all the economic and financial problems Boris won’t do anything about and doesn’t have a clue about.
That’s true isn’t it? Under Boris it’s not clear what the Conservative economic and financial policy is despite Boris set piece speeches to spell it out. And that’s the reason he is being got rid of next week.
*political betting post* I had a £50 bet on Javid because I thought Rishi Sunak had wasted too much money without looking after it properly, but I’m now 99 parcent convinced Sunak is taking over this month. Can I now bet on Sunak as well, bet against my own bet?
Today's YouGov on which party would be best at handling the economy
Conservative 31% - Labour 18%
How did the missing 51% answer?
AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
This Party has no economic policy nor has this one, which one gets your vote. Lol.
What Big G doesn’t realise, if the government goes through another 6 months without sane financial steering, they are going to be buried in a hole there’s no getting out of. But based on my soundings up here in Yorkshire, conservative supporters do appreciate this now.
I would predict the Conservative leadership campaigns in next couple of months is going to be very educational as the candidates, like Rishi, liz and Jav are going to spell out what Conservative socio economics mean to them with policies to achieve their values.
Labour have a problem here as by summer Conservatives are going to be in a fresh new popular place.
A conservative election win next spring is even possible once failure Boris is quickly dealt with this year.
There won't be an election next Spring - the Tories want the extra seats the boundary commission changes create (and the existing boundaries are getting beyond a joke).
As for the economy I hope the candidates have enough common sense to treat Covid as a unique one off expense (so can be printed away) in ways nothing else can be.
For my two pennth, the best meal I have ever had was at a restaurant that doesn't even have a michelin star. It wasn't cheap, but it certainly isn't the most expensive meal I have had.
Most of my best meals have been at non-Michelin places
Random top ten (I could choose eighty more)
Eating at Marco Pierre White's very first place, in south London (forget where) - before he had a star, wow
A crab and asparagus dish in a restaurant made from a garage outside Chiang Mai, Thailand
A beef massaman curry on a beach in Ko Tao, also Thailand
Eating at the first Barrafina off the Strand
Osyters and foie gras and gingerbread in some brilliant old school brasserie in Nantes, France
Dinner by Heston (that has a star or two)
A steak at G W Bush's favourite steak restaurant in Austin Texas
Another steak at Cabana Las Lilas in Buenos Aires
Tiny gnocchi in a private restaurant on a private vineyard on the island of Pantelleria, Italy
Some sardines, recently, in a scruffy cafe above a fish market in Sagres, Portugal
How much of this is about company, location, mood, weather, post-coital bliss - rather than food? At least half of it
I am not sure where to even begin with best food, overall.
For steak, I do. The Tasting Room in Frederick MD does a filet mignon that is the best I have had anywhere, including the best that Buenos Aires or Texas has to offer.
For Indian food, sorry to say that my best experience has been neither in India nor in the UK, but in downtown Washington DC. Rasika (chef was in London prior to moving to the US). Their palak chaat is the most delicious single Indian dish I have ever eaten. For Northern Indian, Bukhara in New York used to be the place.
For the most inventive, surprising and incredible meal I've ever eaten, Contra in lower Manhattan wins: https://contra.nyc It has one star.
For the single ingredient of a dish, Brian Voltaggio at Volt (now sadly gone) outdid everything else I have ever experienced. He does molecular cuisine, which is not my favorite style. But he made 'caviar' out of virgin olive oil. It was the most intensely pleasurable tasting experience of my life to date.
I realize this is a very US-centric list. I have had many spectacular meals in France, Italy, the UK, and Switzerland. But none of them truly stand out from the rest.
I must be incredibly unlucky because 98% of my eating experiences in America are mediocre or worse. And I have been there a LOT, and all over, and in all kinds of joints, from top NYC starred places to innovative California pop-ups to famous BBQ shacks in the Deep South
The one exception is Louisiana especially New Orleans. The food there is consistently great, and they don't do the off-puttingly enormous servings you commonly get in the USA. How can such a rich country still believe "great food = tons of food"?
I think we forget how much better food in the UK has got. Because not many pubs can survive as shitty boozers and huge competition in the restaurant sector, "bog standard" offers across the board have got a hell of a lot better in the past 20-30 years. Sure we still have cheap and crap, but that £10 for a main range has got infinity better in lots of places, and many more people are willing to pay for really good stuff (I presume tv chefs lot has helped this).
Its not that long ago that the Olympic Breakfast at a Little Chef was what people did...now they queue for the overpriced but still better offering from the likes of the Breakfast Club.
The US its seems to be cheap and shit, middle price range, eat your weight in meat...then the small niche high end.
WE DEMAND JUBILEE PANCAKES.
(Which used to be 99p)
Used to be the one of the highlight of my family holidays to Cornwall as a kid....stopping off at a Little Chef for jubilee pancakes.
Now I imagine the kids of today in Cornwall are having organic fresh hand crafted crepes with matcha ice cream...
I'm not sure things have changed that much. When we go to Cornwall we usually have a few meals at the cafe on the cliff top above Treganhawke that does all day breakfasts. Plus a few cream teas, fish and chips and ice creams. The fanciest food is usually consumed at the Eden Project.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
The only reasonably regular series at the moment is England which has reported:
Jan 1: 162,572 2: 123,547 3: 137,541 4: 148,725
Of course [before anyone starts shouting] what's needed is day of test, not day of reporting - but on the face of it "growing, but not exponentially" seems fair.
We've got bank holiday effects within England too, even by specimen date. Trying to micro-analyse over the christmas/new year period is difficult.
Two days in a row London admissions below same figure last week. That's something positive at least.
That looks like prevalence has gone down from the heights of 1/15 so fewer incidentals. The actual number of *for* COVID admissions might actually be quite steady.
No, the incidentals are based on prior 28 day positive case volumes which are still rising as current new cases are higher than they were the first week of December. So a fall in admissions right now looks very good. Should start to see the stock of 28 day cases elligible to become an incidental admission fall in a week or so, only very slowly at first.
Of course with 40k A&E attendances in a normal day in England, it's a miracle incidentals aren't higher than they are already.
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
So I am going to ask a question. I don't claim it is a fair question or perhaps even valid but it is the question that any politician has to be able to answer if they wish to accept your view.
How many people should we allow to die in this country, who could otherwise be saved, so that we can save lives of people in Africa, India, Russia or Poland?
As I say I am not saying it is a fair question but it is the question that cannot be dodged by politicians choosing to follow the route of putting global well being ahead of national well being.
And I know the obvious answer to you and probably to me is that in the long term we might actually save more lives here. But that is not certain and you are asking people to accept deaths now for fewer deaths tomorrow. That is a hard, if not impossible, sell for any politician.
Equally, how many deaths should we allow for each British life saved ?
Yep that is a good question. But I think that it is the one I asked which would cause issues for politicians. Sadly, as with news, a couple of avoidable deaths in this country would cause far more impact that hundreds or thousands overseas. I don't for a second think it is right and I am inclined to agree with Kinabalu about the need to deal with this globally or none of us will really be safe. But politically I think it is probably a non-starter unless the Government can show we are already producing more vaccine than we ned here.
Two days in a row London admissions below same figure last week. That's something positive at least.
That looks like prevalence has gone down from the heights of 1/15 so fewer incidentals. The actual number of *for* COVID admissions might actually be quite steady.
No, the incidentals are based on prior 28 day positive case volumes which are still rising as current new cases are higher than they were the first week of December. So a fall in admissions right now looks very good. Should start to see the stock of 28 day cases elligible to become an incidental admission fall in a week or so, only very slowly at first.
Of course with 40k A&E attendances in a normal day in England, it's a miracle incidentals aren't higher than they are already.
Do you automatically get tested for covid when you arrive at hospital? I assume you do...?
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
The only reasonably regular series at the moment is England which has reported:
Jan 1: 162,572 2: 123,547 3: 137,541 4: 148,725
Of course [before anyone starts shouting] what's needed is day of test, not day of reporting - but on the face of it "growing, but not exponentially" seems fair.
We've got bank holiday effects within England too, even by specimen date. Trying to micro-analyse over the christmas/new year period is difficult.
Speaking of micro analysing i am worried by this time next week Lambeth (and by extension London) will have levelled off at a height i am uncomfortable with.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in , you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you th Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
more bollox
And your reasons for calling it bollox? Oh you don't have any because you've pickled your brain.
Well smartarse , yet another clown who likes to insult through their ignorance. I have forgotten more than your tiny brain will ever know for sure. Since you wrote the bollox and have no clue , I can presume you have little brain to pickle, and prefer just to write bollox. The SNP voted against as Labour had ratted on their promise of a referendum and the SNP had said they would not have that and so gave Labour their just desserts. I happened to know that but any less than intelligent person could have easily checked the facts before they ignorantly posted rubbish and then had the temerity to question someone who knew the answer. You are far from as smart as you think you are sunshine and your use of old Scottish tropes says plenty about you, inferiority complex.
Sorry but what was you actual point within the diatribe of insults that merely emphasis how bad you are at creating an argument.
Where does your idea of a referendum appear from - the entire point in all posts so far is that 1 wasn't offered - as Labour once they have x amounts of seats can rule without explicit SNP support because the SNP can hardly vote with the Tories can they?
+ there is zero chance of a Scottish referendum being included within a Labour Manifesto so I can't see where your "promise" is coming from in the first place.
As I said diatribe full of insults containing an ill informed thought that has no basis within the thesis being discussed
Says the clown who accuses me of being a drunkard. They had promised they would hold a referendum and then stated categorically that they would not, is that not clear enough for you. Slightly better than your " they voted against something or other" pish. Jog on now and give me peace , and make it a very long one.
When did they promise a referendum and under what leader?
When SKS offers you one then you have a valid argument until then it's another of your pipe dreams.
As for calling you a drunkard, when else do people resort to insults before 10pm at night on a web forum...
The only person who does it on this site is you and being frank you exhibit a lot of habits of a drunk...
Jog on loser
So you've not been offered anything by SKS - thought as much.
Yep the drink has pickled your brain - allowing very brief moments of clarity within a sea of pointless insults.
Just for you arsehole
Scotland Act 1978 The government returned to the issue of devolution in November 1977. Separate bills for Scotland and Wales were published and support from the Liberals was obtained. In spite of continued opposition requiring another guillotine motion, the Bills were passed.[1] During the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 through Parliament, an amendment introduced by Labour MP George Cunningham added a requirement that the bill had to be approved by 40% of the total registered electorate, as well as a simple majority (50% + 1).
So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher.
Secondly all the oil money has now gone (which is annoying and explains the attacks but the damage cannot be undone).
Personally I would be very happy for Scotland to inherit what is left of the North Sea Oil Industry (from memory it's mainly decommissioning costs that haven't been saved for and that the Government is going to cut corners to reduce).
You seem to be rambling , you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories , I proved that as bollox ,you then said I was talking rubbish about Labour promise and when I show you that in writing you then start wittering about oil. Where to next, best to go and practice Scottish insults with your bellend pal foremain. As I said previously Jog on.
Just to clarify for your amoeba sized brain Malcolm , I don't insult people because they are Scottish. I leave that kind of racism to nationalists like yourself. I insult you, not because you are Scottish, or even because you are a nationalist bigot, but because you are an obnoxious cunt.
Thought I would clear that up for you in language that even you might understand.
I know I really shouldn't like a post with the C word contained within it but at this point it's valid.
The issue here is that MalcolmG is now the pub bore. Nothing of interest to say so hits the insults because that is all he's got left.
I do however love the fact he confused 1978 so pre Thatcher so ancient history into became 1978 the SNP ensured Thatcher was elected.
I wouldn't normally use the word, but I am very bored with him, although my amateur psychology interest is piqued. It is rare to see someone so regularly suffering from psychological projection. He throws out insult after insult but cannot articulate an even slightly cogent argument and then calls other people "thick as mince". Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
What I find interesting and concerning is
<from me> So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher. </from me>
<malcolmg> you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories </malcolmg>
Um how do you get from my 2 very simple points to the SNP put Thatcher in.
I'm not someone who thinks they can diagnose dementia from online posts but were I Mrs MalcolmG I would be getting him checked out in a hurry - as the more I look at things the more similar it is to the actions of other people with dementia (insults / violence is used to hide / mask their befuddlement).
Indeed. Perhaps we should leave him alone now though? Until he next makes some infantile comment at least perhaps?
On your bike saddo , take more than a sad pipsqueak like you to worry me , you and your arsehole buddy will get your comeuppance and hopefully it will be very long and very painful.
Apparently France has also dropped isolation to five days (along with the US)?
I can't see the seven-day penalty lasting much longer.
We have hundreds of thousands of people sat at home with nothing wrong them. The isolation is rapidly becoming worse than the disease, if it isn't already!
O/T - There have been a couple of articles about risks in 2022. None particularly great and worth linking. However they often point to similar themes - Inflation, Putin, Chinese aggression, Chinese collapse. My top two worries would be Putin and inflation.
With Putin nothing is likely to happen until the spring - insane to fight in winter. I don't think it's at all likely that anything will happen anyway.
Inflation - I know monetarism apparently conquered inflation, but the evidence since has been really unconvincing. I really don't think economists (or anyone else) understand economics, and inflation really can be bad in so many ways.
Would others here have similar worries and thoughts?
Ukraine is certainly at a tipping point. If Putin is going to do anything it's likely to be sooner than later.
Decent Atlantic article. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/ukraine-russia-kyiv-putin-bluff/621145/ ...Seen from Kyiv, the Western attitude toward Russia also looks incredibly naive. Since the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, Americans and Europeans have constantly been surprised by Russia, by Russian aggression, by Russian territorial ambitions, by Russian interference in our own political systems, by Russian attempts to destroy our alliances. But although Putin varies his tactics, his longer-term goals have been very clear for a very long time. He might use disinformation one year, gas-pipeline blackmail another, bribery or violence the next, but the endgame is always the same: reinforce his autocracy, undermine democracies—all democracies—and push Russian political influence as far as it will go. Break up NATO. Destroy the European Union. Remove American influence from Europe and everywhere else, forever.
Americans need to stop being surprised by this list of goals, and instead start writing a list of our own. We could start with this one: Help make Ukraine the successful, prosperous, Western-facing democracy that Putin so clearly fears...
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
The only reasonably regular series at the moment is England which has reported:
Jan 1: 162,572 2: 123,547 3: 137,541 4: 148,725
Of course [before anyone starts shouting] what's needed is day of test, not day of reporting - but on the face of it "growing, but not exponentially" seems fair.
I've done my bit to limit the spread today. Son phones me from park: can I bring some friends back home? Me: how many? Son: about nine. Me: have they all done Covid tests in the last 24 hours? Son (after pausing to consult): no. Me: no, then.
Two days in a row London admissions below same figure last week. That's something positive at least.
That looks like prevalence has gone down from the heights of 1/15 so fewer incidentals. The actual number of *for* COVID admissions might actually be quite steady.
No, the incidentals are based on prior 28 day positive case volumes which are still rising as current new cases are higher than they were the first week of December. So a fall in admissions right now looks very good. Should start to see the stock of 28 day cases elligible to become an incidental admission fall in a week or so, only very slowly at first.
Of course with 40k A&E attendances in a normal day in England, it's a miracle incidentals aren't higher than they are already.
Do you automatically get tested for covid when you arrive at hospital? I assume you do...?
Yes indeed, fair they would be on top of the existing known cases at admission - it's really puzzling that current prevalence isn't driving higher hospital numbers than we're seeing when the usual hospital admissions volumes are so high compared to the covid numbers.
Post war PMs who were appointed Order of the Garter:
Churchill Eden Attlee Wilson Callaghan Heath Thatcher Major Blair
So Douglas-Home didn't get one - which I suppose raises the question of whether Brown will. Cameron definitely should, May maybe, Johnson we'll see. Perhaps Brenda's put those in the tray marked "Charles".
That's because Douglas-Home had the Order of the Thistle, the Scottish equivalent of the Garter and as I understand it you cannot have both orders.
I reckon Brown gets the Thistle.
I agree re a KT for Brown. It is possible though for someone to hold knighthoods in both Orders. It's quite common in the royal family (Charles does, for example), but much rarer outside it. The late Victorian PM Lord Rosebery was one such.
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Yes, there's a huge misunderstanding about how variants occur and evolutionary pathways. The science is really complicated but people just want to boil it down to "give vaccines away" or somehow blame the west, Boris, Trump, the EU or whatever their pet hate is.
There's the opposite too. People making out a fast global vaccine rollout *isn't* important, or is 'pie in the sky' idealism, and advancing junk science or politics to support that claim. Don't mean you, btw, but there's plenty of it about.
But the vaccines are only one part of the equation, all across Africa there's countries throwing vaccine doses away because they've already hit a demand limit for the people they can access easily. Logistics, social media misinformation and idiotic governments are all more important than vaccine supply which is actually something we've resolved, our manufacturing of vaccines across the world is huge and potentially already enough to supply all existing demand.
There's too many people on both sides of the argument who want a simple 140 character answer, but there's no short answer to getting the world vaccinated and supply is a tiny problem compared to anything else.
I don't agree with "tiny problem" but, yes, you're right about there being lots of issues other than vaccine supply. "Rich World hoards while the Rest whistle" and "Big Pharma cleans up and won't share" don't sum up the situation in a fair & accurate way, I do realize this. But those sentiments are in the mix, imo, by which I mean they're not arrant nonsense.
I see we are approaching the peak "speaking in a personal capacity" part of the latest variant wave.
It's farcical – not only are these publicity hungry attention-seekers frequently wrong, they are presented as being Sage despite the ludicrous 'personal capacity' rider.
I'm surprised it's been allowed to continue for so long.
Sky reporting from the US saying things are not looking good for Andrew
Royal family need to pay careful attention to the parable of Owen Paterson and North Shropshire when thinking about how to respond to whatever the judgment is.
Booster jab numbers has really fallen through the floor.
It's demand limitation, anyone who gave a hoot about getting it *quickly* would have been done before the end of the year.
They had a teenager's mother on radio this morning talking about her daughter not being able to get her first dose because she's now caught Covid for the second time. There will be lots of people in the same position waiting to get the booster, but it does look like third dose numbers will do well to get within 10% to second dose.
Having an infection, while of course significantly more risky, is from the POV of immunity more or less equivalent to a booster.
Two days in a row London admissions below same figure last week. That's something positive at least.
That looks like prevalence has gone down from the heights of 1/15 so fewer incidentals. The actual number of *for* COVID admissions might actually be quite steady.
No, the incidentals are based on prior 28 day positive case volumes which are still rising as current new cases are higher than they were the first week of December. So a fall in admissions right now looks very good. Should start to see the stock of 28 day cases elligible to become an incidental admission fall in a week or so, only very slowly at first.
Of course with 40k A&E attendances in a normal day in England, it's a miracle incidentals aren't higher than they are already.
Do you automatically get tested for covid when you arrive at hospital? I assume you do...?
Yes indeed, fair they would be on top of the existing known cases at admission - it's really puzzling that current prevalence isn't driving higher hospital numbers than we're seeing when the usual hospital admissions volumes are so high compared to the covid numbers.
Although you can see the impact increasing on the NHS figures. Last 3 days of admissions on definition 1 (which includes caught it in hospital) rising whilst definision 3 (actual admissions) is falling slightly.
Booster jab numbers has really fallen through the floor.
Presumably the purpose of the Bozo press conference is to implore more people to get boosted. We already know that no additional measures are going to be announced, as the Saj has told us.
O/T - There have been a couple of articles about risks in 2022. None particularly great and worth linking. However they often point to similar themes - Inflation, Putin, Chinese aggression, Chinese collapse. My top two worries would be Putin and inflation.
With Putin nothing is likely to happen until the spring - insane to fight in winter. I don't think it's at all likely that anything will happen anyway.
Inflation - I know monetarism apparently conquered inflation, but the evidence since has been really unconvincing. I really don't think economists (or anyone else) understand economics, and inflation really can be bad in so many ways.
Would others here have similar worries and thoughts?
It isn't that economists don't understand economics. It's that economics doesn't understand people. They have a funny way of not acting as predicted in the models or as theory suggests.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3h This is getting utterly ridiculous now. When this is over the membership and function of SAGE has to be comprehensively reviewed.
Really?
There was a long period on here where poster after poster would rush to defend SAGE or I-SAGE from any scrutiny whatsoever.
The mere suggestion of an agenda would invite a torrent of invective.
'We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months', says JCVI chief Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain's vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.
6 monthly jabs may or may not be the right thing, but his remit is not "THE PLANET". It's the UK. Once again heading outside their remit.
Unless we vaccinate the planet - collectively - then we aren't immune from the next mutation.
That's another covid myth apparently: Myth #1,765 in a regular series...
We should share Covid vaccines with the world, because it is the right thing to do, but not because it will limit of emergence of 'variants' - vaccines don't generate variants but they don't preclude their emergence either - it's all a bit unclear and complicated.
Not just people either, Covid is a general mammalian phenomenon
Nevertheless a world with Covid raging is more likely to throw up things which come and fuck us up than a world with Covid under control. And the quicker we vaccinate the world the quicker we get from that first situation to the second. It's as much a practical imperative as a moral one.
No it isn't necessarily a practical or moral one and probably not a scientific one either. All governments have their first responsibility to their own population. IMHO, the first priority of Western governments is to figure out how to defeat or contain the virus. The strategies that they use will then inform them how they support other governments to do the same.
The virus respects no borders. It's a global pandemic and the best response to it is global. The more inefficient and illogical is the vaccine rollout - eg 5 or 6 jabs in one country and zero in another - the longer the pandemic will last, and the longer it lasts the more the damage will be and the more likely it is that we will be impacted.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
So I am going to ask a question. I don't claim it is a fair question or perhaps even valid but it is the question that any politician has to be able to answer if they wish to accept your view.
How many people should we allow to die in this country, who could otherwise be saved, so that we can save lives of people in Africa, India, Russia or Poland?
As I say I am not saying it is a fair question but it is the question that cannot be dodged by politicians choosing to follow the route of putting global well being ahead of national well being.
And I know the obvious answer to you and probably to me is that in the long term we might actually save more lives here. But that is not certain and you are asking people to accept deaths now for fewer deaths tomorrow. That is a hard, if not impossible, sell for any politician.
It certainly was when vaccines were scarce. They no longer are though so the question is how much help are we going to give to facilitate their distribution? It should, without question, be our number 1 foreign aid objective at the moment.
Today's data seems to be completely useless due to all the massive gaps in reporting. Large number of cases but is this all historical? Very hard to have any idea what is going on.
The only reasonably regular series at the moment is England which has reported:
Jan 1: 162,572 2: 123,547 3: 137,541 4: 148,725
Of course [before anyone starts shouting] what's needed is day of test, not day of reporting - but on the face of it "growing, but not exponentially" seems fair.
We've got bank holiday effects within England too, even by specimen date. Trying to micro-analyse over the christmas/new year period is difficult.
Speaking of micro analysing i am worried by this time next week Lambeth (and by extension London) will have levelled off at a height i am uncomfortable with.
Levelling off just in time for the school rebound.
Apparently France has also dropped isolation to five days (along with the US)?
I can't see the seven-day penalty lasting much longer.
We have hundreds of thousands of people sat at home with nothing wrong them. The isolation is rapidly becoming worse than the disease, if it isn't already!
Great, now they can perhaps drop their ban on Brits transiting their country to visit Belgium.
Comments
Of course, that may be the 1% that serve good food, and the other 99% are awful.
There's too many people on both sides of the argument who want a simple 140 character answer, but there's no short answer to getting the world vaccinated and supply is a tiny problem compared to anything else.
Every day I see an update from South Africa, I imagine Dr Angelique Coetzee sitting in her office, looking out at the Gauteng sunshine, gently buffing her nails.
Conservative 31% - Labour 18%
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1478376296744984581?s=20
I still struggling to get my head around how the now EPL sponsorship deals facilitating of illegal gambling seem to be no problemo....the EPL clubs are literally taking money from companies that provide illegal betting services to the Chinese market and which use Eastern European gangster owned software businesses.
Mildly preferable to the right's ideas on comedy and Scotch politics mind.
Odd.
The issue here is that MalcolmG is now the pub bore. Nothing of interest to say so hits the insults because that is all he's got left.
I do however love the fact he confused 1978 so pre Thatcher so ancient history into became 1978 the SNP ensured Thatcher was elected.
I’m talking about absence of policy and direction Big G and the need for government to have some or it certain comes a cropper. Are you happy to debate with me on what the governments economic policies are?
So what are they? 🤣
Churchill
Eden
Attlee
Wilson
Callaghan
Heath
Thatcher
Major
Blair
So Douglas-Home didn't get one - which I suppose raises the question of whether Brown will. Cameron definitely should, May maybe, Johnson we'll see. Perhaps Brenda's put those in the tray marked "Charles".
Important data issue into today numbers...
Newly reported tests, cases and deaths cover time periods which vary by nation
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new/record/61f5cf21-1d93-4eb2-9195-391996abd1d5
I reckon Brown gets the Thistle.
The question then is this - to what extent should the normal rules of national centric politics - which you outline - be flexed in order to facilitate the optimum globally efficient solution?
I say the answer to this is "to a very great extent" and I think this is the correct answer. After all, this is a once-a-century emergency with an awful lot at stake. If we can't get our (global) act together for this, at least better than we are atm, when will we ever be able to?
As would apocalyptically awful.
Newly discovered Twitter account - Threatening Musical Notation.
This one's Zappa:
https://twitter.com/notation_wut/status/1478177219247697920
The next day I got some free grub at the Democrats campaign office in return for lending a hand - this was the Obama '08 campaign.
Edit: Just seen if I filter to England-only then I get some better data.
<from me>
So 1978 -
Firstly it's ancient history and pre Thatcher.
</from me>
<malcolmg>
you mentioned the SNP put thatcher in to help Tories
</malcolmg>
Um how do you get from my 2 very simple points to the SNP put Thatcher in.
I'm not someone who thinks they can diagnose dementia from online posts but were I Mrs MalcolmG I would be getting him checked out in a hurry - as the more I look at things the more similar it is to the actions of other people with dementia (insults / violence is used to hide / mask their befuddlement).
How many people should we allow to die in this country, who could otherwise be saved, so that we can save lives of people in Africa, India, Russia or Poland?
As I say I am not saying it is a fair question but it is the question that cannot be dodged by politicians choosing to follow the route of putting global well being ahead of national well being.
And I know the obvious answer to you and probably to me is that in the long term we might actually save more lives here. But that is not certain and you are asking people to accept deaths now for fewer deaths tomorrow. That is a hard, if not impossible, sell for any politician.
I expect Rishi to address the high increase in energy costs but I would assume it would be directed to the low paid
However, beyond that I do not believe any party can make firm commitments on tax and spending as nobody knows just where we will be over the coming months
Conservatives are a low tax party and I would be very surprised if tax reductions do not appear from Spring 23
What Big G doesn’t realise, if the government goes through another 6 months without sane financial steering, they are going to be buried in a hole there’s no getting out of. But based on my soundings up here in Yorkshire, conservative supporters do appreciate this now.
I would predict the Conservative leadership campaigns in next couple of months is going to be very educational as the candidates, like Rishi, liz and Jav are going to spell out what Conservative socio economics mean to them with policies to achieve their values.
Labour have a problem here as by summer Conservatives are going to be in a fresh new popular place.
A conservative election win next spring is even possible once failure Boris is quickly dealt with this year.
It will only be tomorrow that I'm back again coding - I don't want to have to revisit code I wrote today and go - what on earth were you thinking.
In some of the African countries they had supply to vaccinate a lot more of their population than they did but they couldn't get their populace to take it up.
So it wasn't always a case of supply, but supply and actual demand for it.
Jan
1: 162,572
2: 123,547
3: 137,541
4: 148,725
Of course [before anyone starts shouting] what's needed is day of test, not day of reporting - but on the face of it "growing, but not exponentially" seems fair.
Downing St news conference at 5.
With Putin nothing is likely to happen until the spring - insane to fight in winter. I don't think it's at all likely that anything will happen anyway.
Inflation - I know monetarism apparently conquered inflation, but the evidence since has been really unconvincing. I really don't think economists (or anyone else) understand economics, and inflation really can be bad in so many ways.
Would others here have similar worries and thoughts?
To say that it is not within JCVI's remit to advise on how global aspects of the pandemic impact the effectiveness of the UK immunization strategy - and to even opine on how things should be done most efficiently at a global level in a perfect world - is simply wrong.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
3h
This is getting utterly ridiculous now. When this is over the membership and function of SAGE has to be comprehensively reviewed.
As for the economy I hope the candidates have enough common sense to treat Covid as a unique one off expense (so can be printed away) in ways nothing else can be.
Of course with 40k A&E attendances in a normal day in England, it's a miracle incidentals aren't higher than they are already.
I can't see the seven-day penalty lasting much longer.
We have hundreds of thousands of people sat at home with nothing wrong them. The isolation is rapidly becoming worse than the disease, if it isn't already!
Decent Atlantic article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/ukraine-russia-kyiv-putin-bluff/621145/
...Seen from Kyiv, the Western attitude toward Russia also looks incredibly naive. Since the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, Americans and Europeans have constantly been surprised by Russia, by Russian aggression, by Russian territorial ambitions, by Russian interference in our own political systems, by Russian attempts to destroy our alliances. But although Putin varies his tactics, his longer-term goals have been very clear for a very long time. He might use disinformation one year, gas-pipeline blackmail another, bribery or violence the next, but the endgame is always the same: reinforce his autocracy, undermine democracies—all democracies—and push Russian political influence as far as it will go. Break up NATO. Destroy the European Union. Remove American influence from Europe and everywhere else, forever.
Americans need to stop being surprised by this list of goals, and instead start writing a list of our own. We could start with this one: Help make Ukraine the successful, prosperous, Western-facing democracy that Putin so clearly fears...
9.8 million left to go
Son phones me from park: can I bring some friends back home?
Me: how many?
Son: about nine.
Me: have they all done Covid tests in the last 24 hours?
Son (after pausing to consult): no.
Me: no, then.
I'm surprised it's been allowed to continue for so long.
They have a funny way of not acting as predicted in the models or as theory suggests.
There was a long period on here where poster after poster would rush to defend SAGE or I-SAGE from any scrutiny whatsoever.
The mere suggestion of an agenda would invite a torrent of invective.