Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
An equally question is why so many people seem to dislike her.
One problem with Social media is that you need a really thick skin to be an MP in this day and age - and a lot of people don't have a thick enough one.
You should be expected to have thick skin, but you shouldn't require armour plating, which is where we are i think!
Technical note for Newsdesks: Currently the report is due to be a webpage on gov.uk but some work is underway to see if it can be turned into PDF too. Ends.
The release of the report will be delayed for a week while someone finds out how to export a PDF from Word.
What gets me is Word to Pdf is incredibly easy, Word to a Gov.uk formatted documenting is virtually impossible.
"Nicola Sturgeon has questioned the UK’s equality watchdog after it urged the Scottish Government to carry out "more detailed consideration" of plans to reform gender recognition laws."
The issue is undoubtedly being used as a proxy for internal SNP feuds with Joanna Cherry getting a lot of grief for her stance on the issue (as has, of course, J K Rowling, a Scottish resident and Indy-sceptic).
Personally, I find it all a bit bewildering, TBH.
Most of Sturgeon's inner circle are halfwits obsessed with self ID and all the crap that goes with it. They supposedly had public consultaions but only talked to the bunch of halfwits that they fund , the same halfwits that are pushing self ID. Now that teh chaicanery is getting publicity it will be interesting to see if the timid , spineless SNP MSP's stay the course and follow the orders. Labour are just as bad.
This kind of bigoted transphobia is why the ALBA party is going nowhere and Scotland will never become independent.
Away you halfwit, take your woke gender ID garbage and stick it up your fundamental. Anybody stupid enough to try and pretend that a man with tackle is a woman deserves all they get. Trying to whine taht people are transphobic just shows the pucity of their argument. No man with a penis should be desperate to get into womens safe spaces and anyone that supports it is pathetic.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
I suspect the biggest issue there is what is the definition of patient-facing? Does it include cleaners and porters?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
Nope, I fundamentally disagree with this. No one should be taxed on their assets in that way. Tax the increased value at point of sale as capital gains. But the idea that people should be taxed for just owning stuff simply immoral. It is the politics of envy writ large.
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff , which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act.The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
In many ways some of these issues are similar to the criticisms made of the current Tory government. There is an arrogance, a refusal to be held accountable, a wish to listen only those who agree with you and a worrying dismissal of contrary views which is deeply unhealthy in any polity.
This really is the crux of it for me. Arrogant and uncompromising winner take all moral missions, even on minor policy issues, driven by extreme edges of a debate who refuse to accept thrre is a debate.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Having stood aside after Jo Cox was assassinated, it would have been appalling to have not stood aside after David Amess was assassinated.
As upthread, the OMRLP should have stood, or one of the assorted Odd Left groups. I must say, tragic though the occurrences have been, that's one each now and both main parties should agree a different arrangement.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
I heard a clinician on radio yesterday say that, on the evidence so far, there is no basis for a covid vaccine mandate for any healthy person under 40. I am not advancing that argument at all, but what I would say is that, unlike for some other diseases, the science may not be settled yet. There is still debate, and whilst there is, there should be no mandate.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Having stood aside after Jo Cox was assassinated, it would have been appalling to have not stood aside after David Amess was assassinated.
That is an argument for never changing, and for the primacy of precedent. Yet expecting people to stand aside after Ms Cox died was itself a major change compared to previous examples of the same situation.
So Cabinet Office says it's an "update" which means it will not draw a line. It’s Gray part one. Then we get the Met. Then one way or another we will get Gray 2.0
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
Exactly. They occasionally try and dress it up but ultimately their stance is incompatible with a scientific view. What will they arbitrarily decide they wont comply with next? They put me in mind of doctors who continued to object to washing their hands.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
So Cabinet Office says it's an "update" which means it will not draw a line. It’s Gray part one. Then we get the Met. Then one way or another we will get Gray 2.0
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Having stood aside after Jo Cox was assassinated, it would have been appalling to have not stood aside after David Amess was assassinated.
That is an argument for never changing, and for the primacy of precedent. Yet expecting people to stand aside after Ms Cox died was itself a major change compared to previous examples of the same situation.
Indeed.
I'm not taking a position on whether the Tories and Lib Dems were right to have stood aside in B&S. I'm merely arguing that once they had done so, it would have been wrong for Labour and the Lib Dems to have contested Southend West.
As OKC says, now that there's been one on each side, it would be helpful for the main parties to come to an agreement of how to handle it in future.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
I heard a clinician on radio yesterday say that, on the evidence so far, there is no basis for a covid vaccine mandate for any healthy person under 40. I am not advancing that argument at all, but what I would say is that, unlike for some other diseases, the science may not be settled yet. There is still debate, and whilst there is, there should be no mandate.
But that person under 40 if a front line health worker will be in contact with people well over 40 and in a vulnerable state. That is the issue. Frankly I don't give a flying f**k about the health worker if they are stupid enough not to be vaccinated. I do give a f**k about the person they are treating who has no choice in the matter
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
So Cabinet Office says it's an "update" which means it will not draw a line. It’s Gray part one. Then we get the Met. Then one way or another we will get Gray 2.0
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
So. The PM is going to issue his own propaganda on a partial (in both senses) report before anybody else has had chance to read it then? Exactly as expected.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Having stood aside after Jo Cox was assassinated, it would have been appalling to have not stood aside after David Amess was assassinated.
That is an argument for never changing, and for the primacy of precedent. Yet expecting people to stand aside after Ms Cox died was itself a major change compared to previous examples of the same situation.
Indeed.
I'm not taking a position on whether the Tories and Lib Dems were right to have stood aside in B&S. I'm merely arguing that once they had done so, it would have been wrong for Labour and the Lib Dems to have contested Southend West.
As OKC says, now that there's been one on each side, it would be helpful for the main parties to come to an agreement of how to handle it in future.
I'd like the major party leaders to reach an agreement that they've decided in future they wont let such a tragedy derail democratic contests and so will stand in their usual fashion. That way if gods forbid it does there wont need to be a swift decision, which inevitably will tend toward standing aside or be accused of taking advantage.
So. The PM is going to issue his own propaganda on a partial (in both senses) report before anybody else has had chance to read it then? Exactly as expected.
Well, Hoyle has been insistent on announcements being made to the Commons first,
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
There is lots of evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission. It's not up at the 90+% rates seen against the original strain, but it's worth having with vulnerable people, such as care home residents or hospital patients.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
I heard a clinician on radio yesterday say that, on the evidence so far, there is no basis for a covid vaccine mandate for any healthy person under 40. I am not advancing that argument at all, but what I would say is that, unlike for some other diseases, the science may not be settled yet. There is still debate, and whilst there is, there should be no mandate.
There is always "debate" on anything scientific, particularly at the margins. It is certainly "settled" that the vaccination offers very very little risk to the vast majority and the clinical evidence is there. Refusing the vaccine and the very tiny risk that it carries demonstrates a level of selfishness that is not aligned to the principles of medicine, or for that matter just being a decent human being IMO.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
There is plenty of evidence that vaccination both reduces the likelihood of you getting Covid and of passing it on.
Its not 100%, but neither is PPE. If an NHS worker refused to wear PPE on that grounds that its not 100% then would they be tolerated or dismissed?
So. The PM is going to issue his own propaganda on a partial (in both senses) report before anybody else has had chance to read it then? Exactly as expected.
Why wasn't the bloody report released to the PM and Loto simultaneously, in full and unreacted?
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Having stood aside after Jo Cox was assassinated, it would have been appalling to have not stood aside after David Amess was assassinated.
That is an argument for never changing, and for the primacy of precedent. Yet expecting people to stand aside after Ms Cox died was itself a major change compared to previous examples of the same situation.
Indeed.
I'm not taking a position on whether the Tories and Lib Dems were right to have stood aside in B&S. I'm merely arguing that once they had done so, it would have been wrong for Labour and the Lib Dems to have contested Southend West.
As OKC says, now that there's been one on each side, it would be helpful for the main parties to come to an agreement of how to handle it in future.
I'd like the major party leaders to reach an agreement that they've decided in future they wont let such a tragedy derail democratic contests and so will stand in their usual fashion. That way if gods forbid it does there wont need to be a swift decision, which inevitably will tend toward standing aside or be accused of taking advantage.
Quite.
Standing aside isn't evenb a discouragement to nutters. On both sides of the divide hatred seems to be directed at the wrong sort of one's own side, than the opposition, so it's playing into the hands of a Corbynite nutter who wants to assassinate a Blairite, or a Leaver who thinks their tory mp is a bit lukewarm, for them to know there's a reasonable chance of electing someone from the correct side of the same party as the victim.
So. The PM is going to issue his own propaganda on a partial (in both senses) report before anybody else has had chance to read it then? Exactly as expected.
Why wasn't the bloody report released to the PM and Loto simultaneously, in full and unreacted?
Anyone? Anyone?
LOTO will get it along with a copy of the accompanying statement.
"Update" meaning "interim report" I think. They can't even bloody get that right.
This really is an embarrassing fiasco, isn't it? The whole country is laughing at Whitehall, the PM and the Met. Soon much of the world will be.
It already is. Tory Party members ought to hang their heads in shame for putting this unsuitable fool in any position of responsibility. As an ex-member I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so".
"Nicola Sturgeon has questioned the UK’s equality watchdog after it urged the Scottish Government to carry out "more detailed consideration" of plans to reform gender recognition laws."
The issue is undoubtedly being used as a proxy for internal SNP feuds with Joanna Cherry getting a lot of grief for her stance on the issue (as has, of course, J K Rowling, a Scottish resident and Indy-sceptic).
Personally, I find it all a bit bewildering, TBH.
Most of Sturgeon's inner circle are halfwits obsessed with self ID and all the crap that goes with it. They supposedly had public consultaions but only talked to the bunch of halfwits that they fund , the same halfwits that are pushing self ID. Now that teh chaicanery is getting publicity it will be interesting to see if the timid , spineless SNP MSP's stay the course and follow the orders. Labour are just as bad.
This kind of bigoted transphobia is why the ALBA party is going nowhere and Scotland will never become independent.
Away you halfwit, take your woke gender ID garbage and stick it up your fundamental. Anybody stupid enough to try and pretend that a man with tackle is a woman deserves all they get. Trying to whine taht people are transphobic just shows the pucity of their argument. No man with a penis should be desperate to get into womens safe spaces and anyone that supports it is pathetic.
Though existing law does require just that.
In order to get gender surgery, it is nessecary to live as a woman for 2 years or longer, hence there is a requirement for pre-surgical Trans people to access single sex spaces opposite to their assigned sex.
What I find less comprehensible are people who are neither taking hormones, nor planning surgery to claim that they are women.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Having stood aside after Jo Cox was assassinated, it would have been appalling to have not stood aside after David Amess was assassinated.
That is an argument for never changing, and for the primacy of precedent. Yet expecting people to stand aside after Ms Cox died was itself a major change compared to previous examples of the same situation.
Indeed.
I'm not taking a position on whether the Tories and Lib Dems were right to have stood aside in B&S. I'm merely arguing that once they had done so, it would have been wrong for Labour and the Lib Dems to have contested Southend West.
As OKC says, now that there's been one on each side, it would be helpful for the main parties to come to an agreement of how to handle it in future.
Just looked it up. Prior to Batley etc there were three on the mainland since 1945, all at the hands of the IRA or similar; Airey Neave in 1979, Sir Anthony Berry in 1984 and Ian Now in 1990. The first was shortly before the 1979 GE, in the second Michael Portillo beat a Liberal candidate, with Labour third and in 1990 David Bellotti, Liberal, won the seat from the Tories with Labour again third.
So. The PM is going to issue his own propaganda on a partial (in both senses) report before anybody else has had chance to read it then? Exactly as expected.
Why wasn't the bloody report released to the PM and Loto simultaneously, in full and unreacted?
Anyone? Anyone?
Becaause the PM is Ms Gray's boss. Standard Civil Service and quango practice to feed anything politically sensitive up the line to management. In the agency I worked in, in that situation a Board committee would. I think, have been set up to consider issues relating to the director (not that there were any). In the No 10 situation, that leaves either HMtQ who is nonpolitical, or the Lord God, who is noncorporeal. So Mr J is qutie entitled to modify it as he wishes, sorry thinks best for the organization. In practice he is subject to his electorate, namely the Tory MPs.
But I was just reading Stephen Bush of the Staggers's morning email, which commented of the latter's role:
"Back when I was selling books, if we had cornered a shoplifter, checked the CCTV and decided we needed to call the police, we wouldn’t have felt it necessary to have an all-staff viewing party or to wait for the magistrate to report back in order to bar the shoplifter in future. Similarly, most Conservative MPs know that the moment at which they could have brought about a change of leadership has already passed."
It's being reported as if the Sue Gray Report has been delivered to No. 10 and Boris is excitedly opening it and reading it to see what revelations it contains.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
As a Trust we usually hit the high 90% for staff Flu uptake, we have been number one or two in the entire country in recent years for uptake.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
Nope, I fundamentally disagree with this. No one should be taxed on their assets in that way. Tax the increased value at point of sale as capital gains. But the idea that people should be taxed for just owning stuff simply immoral. It is the politics of envy writ large.
I'm not sure that it's the politics of envy. I think I'm generally in favour, but I can see that it does reflect an infringement on the right to private property, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
One way in which land value tax, as opposed to a general wealth or property tax, gets around that is to conceptually redefine ownership of land as a partial thing. In a way, all the land should belong to everyone equally, and for people to assert private ownership of land is a bit different to asserting private ownership of a musical instrument, since there is a strictly finite and fixed quantity of land, and so one person's ownership of land necessarily denies that to another person, whereas all other things that are owned can be created.
Therefore, taxation of land value can be justified as asserting the interest that the community retains in the land.
So I think I'd be more comfortable with taxation of land as opposed to ownership of assets more generally.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
There is lots of evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission. It's not up at the 90+% rates seen against the original strain, but it's worth having with vulnerable people, such as care home residents or hospital patients.
Sure, but when the government is planning to end isolation* for people covid positive in March, haven't we accepted mass transmission already?
*it's not clear whether Health and Social care will comply with this.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
As a Trust we usually hit the high 90% for staff Flu uptake, we have been number one or two in the entire country in recent years for uptake.
It's not a requirement to have the Flu jab.
Well, well, that's very interesting, thanks. What is the equivalent figure for covid at present?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
As a Trust we usually hit the high 90% for staff Flu uptake, we have been number one or two in the entire country in recent years for uptake.
It's not a requirement to have the Flu jab.
Sounds like a great record. What is your trust's preference regarding mandated jabs in this case.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Disagree. Principle should always stand ahead of short term political advantage. That is the fundamental problem with Johnson and those that apologise for him. They overlook his unsuitability in a Faustian pact for his perceived electoral advantage. If the LDs had stood, they would appear to be no better than Johnson or any other political chancer.
If the right thing thing to do is to elect someone else from the same party, the constituents will choose that. It doesn't do any harm to give the voters that choice.
It is a reasonable argument, though I think that it is also a good argument to suggest that assassination is not "rewarded" by a change of party colour. The constituents won't have to wait too long to endorse that change at the following GE. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that in what we should hope is the exceptional circumstances of an assassination of an MP, the party should be able to appoint a successor to sit until the next GE. Should the constituents feel this is wrong there could be some sort of recall system in place.
"Update" meaning "interim report" I think. They can't even bloody get that right.
This really is an embarrassing fiasco, isn't it? The whole country is laughing at Whitehall, the PM and the Met. Soon much of the world will be.
It already is. Tory Party members ought to hang their heads in shame for putting this unsuitable fool in any position of responsibility. As an ex-member I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so".
Absolutely not. Boris did exactly what I voted for him to do, he beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
You have to admire their courage coming on for the first time and taking on @malcolmg . Very impressed or just full of beer and looking for a fight.
The t***s debate excites tremendous passion on both sides. PB is of course a forum for passionate debate so we will have to see how our new arrivals roll out their strategy.
And as you say what a cracking baptism of fire with @malcolmg. .
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Disagree. Principle should always stand ahead of short term political advantage. That is the fundamental problem with Johnson and those that apologise for him. They overlook his unsuitability in a Faustian pact for his perceived electoral advantage. If the LDs had stood, they would appear to be no better than Johnson or any other political chancer.
If the right thing thing to do is to elect someone else from the same party, the constituents will choose that. It doesn't do any harm to give the voters that choice.
It is a reasonable argument, though I think that it is also a good argument to suggest that assassination is not "rewarded" by a change of party colour. The constituents won't have to wait too long to endorse that change at the following GE. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that in what we should hope is the exceptional circumstances of an assassination of an MP, the party should be able to appoint a successor to sit until the next GE. Should the constituents feel this is wrong there could be some sort of recall system in place.
Yes, that's fair and makes much more sense than having a byelection for show – which is what this is – with every loon, weirdo and psycho from Essex to East Sussex stuttering their stuff on the candidate list.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Disagree. Principle should always stand ahead of short term political advantage. That is the fundamental problem with Johnson and those that apologise for him. They overlook his unsuitability in a Faustian pact for his perceived electoral advantage. If the LDs had stood, they would appear to be no better than Johnson or any other political chancer.
If the right thing thing to do is to elect someone else from the same party, the constituents will choose that. It doesn't do any harm to give the voters that choice.
It is a reasonable argument, though I think that it is also a good argument to suggest that assassination is not "rewarded" by a change of party colour. The constituents won't have to wait too long to endorse that change at the following GE. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that in what we should hope is the exceptional circumstances of an assassination of an MP, the party should be able to appoint a successor to sit until the next GE. Should the constituents feel this is wrong there could be some sort of recall system in place.
Indeed we don't need a US style system where politicians are increasingly threatened by the public, so they get increasingly divorced from the public due to "security".
Under no circumstances normally should elections be viewed in purely party colours but the one exception I will make is politically-motivated murder. We've had 2 MPs murdered within a decade, we don't want more of that. It makes sense for MPs of all parties, for their own security, to say that politically motivated murder is never OK and they will never seek to capitalise on a politically motivated murder by gaining the seat at the by-election.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Source: “it’s an absolute mess - everything interesting has been removed”.
Between the Met police and No 10, the report has been destroyed - hands up here anyone who is surprised by this turn of events.
No surprises at all. This sort of thing can drive to a guy to populism. There will be much talk about "establishment" and "closing ranks", and it may not be wide of the mark.
Conservative MPs, where were you? Where ARE you? With power comes responsibility. Do your duty, damn you.
"Update" meaning "interim report" I think. They can't even bloody get that right.
This really is an embarrassing fiasco, isn't it? The whole country is laughing at Whitehall, the PM and the Met. Soon much of the world will be.
It already is. Tory Party members ought to hang their heads in shame for putting this unsuitable fool in any position of responsibility. As an ex-member I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so".
Absolutely not. Boris did exactly what I voted for him to do, he beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
So. The PM is going to issue his own propaganda on a partial (in both senses) report before anybody else has had chance to read it then? Exactly as expected.
Why wasn't the bloody report released to the PM and Loto simultaneously, in full and unreacted?
Anyone? Anyone?
I think the answer is essentially the same as to the question about why a dog licks a particular part of his anatomy.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Disagree. Principle should always stand ahead of short term political advantage. That is the fundamental problem with Johnson and those that apologise for him. They overlook his unsuitability in a Faustian pact for his perceived electoral advantage. If the LDs had stood, they would appear to be no better than Johnson or any other political chancer.
If the right thing thing to do is to elect someone else from the same party, the constituents will choose that. It doesn't do any harm to give the voters that choice.
It is a reasonable argument, though I think that it is also a good argument to suggest that assassination is not "rewarded" by a change of party colour. The constituents won't have to wait too long to endorse that change at the following GE. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that in what we should hope is the exceptional circumstances of an assassination of an MP, the party should be able to appoint a successor to sit until the next GE. Should the constituents feel this is wrong there could be some sort of recall system in place.
Yes, that's fair and makes much more sense than having a byelection for show – which is what this is – with every loon, weirdo and psycho from Essex to East Sussex stuttering their stuff on the candidate list.
Still unfair on the constituents, like any party slate scheme (such as that at Holyrood, which has led to some prize specimens of lesser primates being elected MSP on occasion). And we aren't Americans to give the party such primacy in the primary event of the election of a MP: it;s the individual we elect. But the recall idea mitigates that, I suppose.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
So if she leaves Labour, where does she go? Tory..... unlikely, I would have thought. LD..... possible I suppose. Ind? Lonely.
Indy, I would think, then she could get the payoff when defeated. To the Tories would be more likely to retain seat, but far from certain and wouldn't match her voting on other issues.
LibDem is credible. Look back at historic results for the seat, there was a time when the LibDems were competitive. And local relations are good - the local LibDem candidate withdrew in her favour in the last election, backed by his local party, and HQ has to stamp on them and parachute a candidate in.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
Nope, I fundamentally disagree with this. No one should be taxed on their assets in that way. Tax the increased value at point of sale as capital gains. But the idea that people should be taxed for just owning stuff simply immoral. It is the politics of envy writ large.
I'm not sure that it's the politics of envy. I think I'm generally in favour, but I can see that it does reflect an infringement on the right to private property, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
One way in which land value tax, as opposed to a general wealth or property tax, gets around that is to conceptually redefine ownership of land as a partial thing. In a way, all the land should belong to everyone equally, and for people to assert private ownership of land is a bit different to asserting private ownership of a musical instrument, since there is a strictly finite and fixed quantity of land, and so one person's ownership of land necessarily denies that to another person, whereas all other things that are owned can be created.
Therefore, taxation of land value can be justified as asserting the interest that the community retains in the land.
So I think I'd be more comfortable with taxation of land as opposed to ownership of assets more generally.
On a more practical level, property taxes are usually liked by politicians because such taxes are harder to evade. The property is there and has a known marketable value - pay up.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
The approach recommended recently by the House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee is as below. It was completed after hearing submissions from all interested parties and comes down in favour of a de-medicalized gender transition process based on self-ID. Such is already the case in several countries.
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
Recruitment is the NHS's responsibility.
Pay is set by HM Government
Pay is too low to attract sufficient staff
I would have thought supply and demand was basics for PB Tories
"Update" meaning "interim report" I think. They can't even bloody get that right.
This really is an embarrassing fiasco, isn't it? The whole country is laughing at Whitehall, the PM and the Met. Soon much of the world will be.
It already is. Tory Party members ought to hang their heads in shame for putting this unsuitable fool in any position of responsibility. As an ex-member I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so".
Absolutely not. Boris did exactly what I voted for him to do, he beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
I see that you still have that certainty problem. Unless, of course, as I suggested previously that you somehow have a superpower that enables you to cross into parallel universes, a bit like in "His Dark Materials", and view alternative histories.
I have always avoided the "pile ons" that you are sometimes subjected to, because I think that underneath it all, you are a decent chap, if somewhat naïve. In the politest possible way, then, I will ask you: Stop talking unsubstantiated bollox as though it is fact. It simply makes you look foolish.
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
Zero post count means, I think, that it's through a proxy server and so possibly trying to hide a banned person's IP address?
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
Well if you remember the original meaning of the word "troll" was someone who came onto a forum and sowed dissent and tried to disrupt the "harmony" of that forum.
Well of course PB doesn't have any harmony and hence my response which was let's see what they bring to the debate. If they however spam dozens and dozens of posts about that single issue then it would become tiresome but god knows we have posters who post dozens and dozens of comments which are hugely tiresome so no real change there either.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
This is the problem. in the real world care homes are so short of staff that any extra risk from an unvaccinated care worker is far outweighed by the very real risk of neglect from having too few care workers.
Nothing kills vulnerable people quicker than indifference or neglect, and in horrible ways.
Many people on here see vaccination as the ultimate badge of morality, rather like baptism or confirmation, whereas morality is surely complex and needs to be taken in the round. Some non-christians act very christian, and vice versa.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
Zero post count means, I think, that it's through a proxy server and so possibly trying to hide a banned person's IP address?
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Clear win for the Socialists in Portugal then and a majority, even if only of 1.
Poor result for the Social Democrats. Big result for the hard right Chega too, who take third place from the far left Left Bloc
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
It is about not to be gross misconduct if we are to believe the rumour mill about the forthcoming u-turn.
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case. .
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
Zero post count means, I think, that it's through a proxy server and so possibly trying to hide a banned person's IP address?
I believe that at least one of the Mary Miltons had a post deleted.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
This is the problem. in the real world care homes are so short of staff that any extra risk from an unvaccinated care worker is far outweighed by the very real risk of neglect from having too few care workers.
Nothing kills vulnerable people quicker than indifference or neglect, and in horrible ways.
Many people on here see vaccination as the ultimate badge of morality, rather like baptism or confirmation, whereas morality is surely complex and needs to be taken in the round. Some non-christians act very christian, and vice versa.
Agree 100%. And it is surprising the posters who thinks this.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
As a Trust we usually hit the high 90% for staff Flu uptake, we have been number one or two in the entire country in recent years for uptake.
It's not a requirement to have the Flu jab.
Sounds like a great record. What is your trust's preference regarding mandated jabs in this case.
For Covid or Flu?
This Trust got hit pretty hard with Covid, see the CNN pieces they did live from our Trust when we had some of the highest levels of Covid in the country. Speaking to colleagues because of what they have experienced throughout the Pandemic there is very much a mindset of get jabbed so that it hopefully brings us closer to some normality in terms of reducing the pressures on the service. Staff who don't or won't get jabbed do get looked down upon. Very much an us vs them mentality developing. We also lost a numver if staff during the Pandemic and that's very much in the minds of their colleagues.
I believe around 6% of the 11,000 staff we have including permanent and bank staff are not fully vaccinated for Covid. I don't know how high that compares across the rest of the UK with other trusts.
For both Flu and Covid I think it should be mandatory. That's my personal preference and I know I couldn't/wouldn't want to work in a Healthcare Service if I wasn't doing my bit to protect the vulnerable.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
In that graphic, the 'unvaccinated' includes everyone that did not take the booster, including the double vaccinated?
Unvaccinated means exactly that - no vaccination.
Note that the numbers are rates per 100K. So the chart is showing that boosted people get COVID in the Omicron "era" 5x less than the completely unvaccinated.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
It is about not to be gross misconduct if we are to believe the rumour mill about the forthcoming u-turn.
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case.
Not for care staff.
Unvaccinated care staff were sacked months ago. Care homes continued to operate without them for the last couple of months.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
You have to admire their courage coming on for the first time and taking on @malcolmg . Very impressed or just full of beer and looking for a fight.
The t***s debate excites tremendous passion on both sides. PB is of course a forum for passionate debate so we will have to see how our new arrivals roll out their strategy.
And as you say what a cracking baptism of fire with @malcolmg. .
Personally I find malcolmg’s endless invective tiresome & wonder occasionally why OGH puts up with someone who contributes little to the site except insulting contributors who happen to disagree with them. What exactly are they contributing except bile + scorn to the discussion?
But it’s OGH’s site & they get to set the terms.
(This is an honest question: pointers to quality malcolmg comments that balance out the invective gratefully received.)
Comments
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
Trying to whine taht people are transphobic just shows the pucity of their argument. No man with a penis should be desperate to get into womens safe spaces and anyone that supports it is pathetic.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'm not sure I will be able to cope.
Hearing Boris Johnson is trying to get a deal done today to transfer the Gray Report out for a Hutton Report.
I must say, tragic though the occurrences have been, that's one each now and both main parties should agree a different arrangement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cIDzJeebMg
I'm not taking a position on whether the Tories and Lib Dems were right to have stood aside in B&S. I'm merely arguing that once they had done so, it would have been wrong for Labour and the Lib Dems to have contested Southend West.
As OKC says, now that there's been one on each side, it would be helpful for the main parties to come to an agreement of how to handle it in future.
June: Fifty Shades Darker
2026: Fifty Shades Freed
Exactly as expected.
Its not 100%, but neither is PPE. If an NHS worker refused to wear PPE on that grounds that its not 100% then would they be tolerated or dismissed?
Why wasn't the bloody report released to the PM and Loto simultaneously, in full and unreacted?
Anyone? Anyone?
Standing aside isn't evenb a discouragement to nutters. On both sides of the divide hatred seems to be directed at the wrong sort of one's own side, than the opposition, so it's playing into the hands of a Corbynite nutter who wants to assassinate a Blairite, or a Leaver who thinks their tory mp is a bit lukewarm, for them to know there's a reasonable chance of electing someone from the correct side of the same party as the victim.
In order to get gender surgery, it is nessecary to live as a woman for 2 years or longer, hence there is a requirement for pre-surgical Trans people to access single sex spaces opposite to their assigned sex.
What I find less comprehensible are people who are neither taking hormones, nor planning surgery to claim that they are women.
But I was just reading Stephen Bush of the Staggers's morning email, which commented of the latter's role:
"Back when I was selling books, if we had cornered a shoplifter, checked the CCTV and decided we needed to call the police, we wouldn’t have felt it necessary to have an all-staff viewing party or to wait for the magistrate to report back in order to bar the shoplifter in future. Similarly, most Conservative MPs know that the moment at which they could have brought about a change of leadership has already passed."
Yeah, right. If people believe that, .........
It's not a requirement to have the Flu jab.
One way in which land value tax, as opposed to a general wealth or property tax, gets around that is to conceptually redefine ownership of land as a partial thing. In a way, all the land should belong to everyone equally, and for people to assert private ownership of land is a bit different to asserting private ownership of a musical instrument, since there is a strictly finite and fixed quantity of land, and so one person's ownership of land necessarily denies that to another person, whereas all other things that are owned can be created.
Therefore, taxation of land value can be justified as asserting the interest that the community retains in the land.
So I think I'd be more comfortable with taxation of land as opposed to ownership of assets more generally.
*it's not clear whether Health and Social care will comply with this.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
· 1h
Source: “it’s an absolute mess - everything interesting has been removed”.
Between the Met police and No 10, the report has been destroyed - hands up here anyone who is surprised by this turn of events.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
And as you say what a cracking baptism of fire with @malcolmg.
.
Under no circumstances normally should elections be viewed in purely party colours but the one exception I will make is politically-motivated murder. We've had 2 MPs murdered within a decade, we don't want more of that. It makes sense for MPs of all parties, for their own security, to say that politically motivated murder is never OK and they will never seek to capitalise on a politically motivated murder by gaining the seat at the by-election.
Its not ideal, but its the least worst option.
"Because he can."
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
Recruitment is the NHS's responsibility.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8329/documents/84728/default/
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
Pay is too low to attract sufficient staff
I would have thought supply and demand was basics for PB Tories
This could actually increase pressure for Boris to consider his position
I have always avoided the "pile ons" that you are sometimes subjected to, because I think that underneath it all, you are a decent chap, if somewhat naïve. In the politest possible way, then, I will ask you: Stop talking unsubstantiated bollox as though it is fact. It simply makes you look foolish.
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Well of course PB doesn't have any harmony and hence my response which was let's see what they bring to the debate. If they however spam dozens and dozens of posts about that single issue then it would become tiresome but god knows we have posters who post dozens and dozens of comments which are hugely tiresome so no real change there either.
Nothing kills vulnerable people quicker than indifference or neglect, and in horrible ways.
Many people on here see vaccination as the ultimate badge of morality, rather like baptism or confirmation, whereas morality is surely complex and needs to be taken in the round. Some non-christians act very christian, and vice versa.
https://secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.99/hjn.a49.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/WHICH-RIGHTS.pdf
Poor result for the Social Democrats. Big result for the hard right Chega too, who take third place from the far left Left Bloc
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case.
.
This Trust got hit pretty hard with Covid, see the CNN pieces they did live from our Trust when we had some of the highest levels of Covid in the country. Speaking to colleagues because of what they have experienced throughout the Pandemic there is very much a mindset of get jabbed so that it hopefully brings us closer to some normality in terms of reducing the pressures on the service. Staff who don't or won't get jabbed do get looked down upon. Very much an us vs them mentality developing. We also lost a numver if staff during the Pandemic and that's very much in the minds of their colleagues.
I believe around 6% of the 11,000 staff we have including permanent and bank staff are not fully vaccinated for Covid. I don't know how high that compares across the rest of the UK with other trusts.
For both Flu and Covid I think it should be mandatory. That's my personal preference and I know I couldn't/wouldn't want to work in a Healthcare Service if I wasn't doing my bit to protect the vulnerable.
Note that the numbers are rates per 100K. So the chart is showing that boosted people get COVID in the Omicron "era" 5x less than the completely unvaccinated.
Unvaccinated care staff were sacked months ago. Care homes continued to operate without them for the last couple of months.
But it’s OGH’s site & they get to set the terms.
(This is an honest question: pointers to quality malcolmg comments that balance out the invective gratefully received.)