LAB lead up 7 point in 2 weeks with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

System

LAB lead up 7 point in 2 weeks with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

We have had a spate of polling in the past few days the most marked one has been YouGov’s 8% LAB lead which had CON just 1% behind after the local elections.

Read the full story here

DavidL

First?

Oh yes, I couldn't have done this without my family, my parents, my work colleagues and everyone else who distracts me from my actual work. Thanks to them all.

kyf_100

7%? That's almost as much as prices have gone up in the shops the last couple of weeks.

rottenborough

FPT:

Laughable bilge from Lilico, who made a lot more sense when talking about the pandemic and models:

"The PM may well have done things that pressed the rules to their maximum licence in ways he shouldn’t have. But it was always implausible that he would have acted in ways he knew violated them. He’s jolly. He’s lax. He blurs the lines between work and play. But he isn’t cynical."


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/boris-partygate-critics-have-given-humiliating-thrashing/

DavidL

kyf_100 said:

7%? That's almost as much as prices have gone up in the shops the last couple of weeks.

From one outlier to another, I think Yougov might want to reduce their bounciness just a tad, even if it gets more headlines.

rottenborough

President Biden’s approval rating sank to 39 percent in a poll released Friday, underscoring the challenges he and his party face heading into the midterms as he juggles multiple domestic and international problems.

The Hill


Yet apparently he will run in 2024.

DavidL

rottenborough said:

President Biden’s approval rating sank to 39 percent in a poll released Friday, underscoring the challenges he and his party face heading into the midterms as he juggles multiple domestic and international problems.

The Hill


Yet apparently he will run in 2024.

Run? He will be lucky if he can walk.

Applicant

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

7%? That's almost as much as prices have gone up in the shops the last couple of weeks.

From one outlier to another, I think Yougov might want to reduce their bounciness just a tad, even if it gets more headlines.

Bounciness producing outliers that make headlines is pretty much Yougov's SOP as far as I can tell. As long as their final poll isn't too far out they don't have to change.

The headline here is risible, of course, but it's what gets the clicks.

DavidL

Applicant said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

7%? That's almost as much as prices have gone up in the shops the last couple of weeks.

From one outlier to another, I think Yougov might want to reduce their bounciness just a tad, even if it gets more headlines.

Bounciness producing outliers that make headlines is pretty much Yougov's SOP as far as I can tell. As long as their final poll isn't too far out they don't have to change.

The headline here is risible, of course, but it's what gets the clicks.

Oh you cynic.

boulay

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

President Biden’s approval rating sank to 39 percent in a poll released Friday, underscoring the challenges he and his party face heading into the midterms as he juggles multiple domestic and international problems.

The Hill


Yet apparently he will run in 2024.

Run? He will be lucky if he can walk.

I think he is in with a sniff of a chance.

MattW

Heh. Giggle of the afternoon.

Listening to the new French Cabinet appointments, the former ambassador to the UK has been appointed "Junior Minister in Charge of Europe." (or so says France24)

Applicant

DavidL said:

Applicant said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

7%? That's almost as much as prices have gone up in the shops the last couple of weeks.

From one outlier to another, I think Yougov might want to reduce their bounciness just a tad, even if it gets more headlines.

Bounciness producing outliers that make headlines is pretty much Yougov's SOP as far as I can tell. As long as their final poll isn't too far out they don't have to change.

The headline here is risible, of course, but it's what gets the clicks.

Oh you cynic.

Thanks!

DecrepiterJohnL

Applicant said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

7%? That's almost as much as prices have gone up in the shops the last couple of weeks.

From one outlier to another, I think Yougov might want to reduce their bounciness just a tad, even if it gets more headlines.

Bounciness producing outliers that make headlines is pretty much Yougov's SOP as far as I can tell. As long as their final poll isn't too far out they don't have to change.

The headline here is risible, of course, but it's what gets the clicks.

With prices shooting up, and some way off an election, it is not a surprising result. Whether it is reliable...

SandyRentool

FPT:

Well we already knew that @Leon stalked a well known thriller writer around the holiday destinations of Europe and beyond, but it now transpires that they were in prison together. Uncanny...

(Happily, both entirely innocent.)

rcs1000

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

Selebian

DavidL said:

First?

Oh yes, I couldn't have done this without my family, my parents, my work colleagues and everyone else who distracts me from my actual work. Thanks to them all.

Do the good people of PB not deserve a more specific mention than "everyone else who distracts me from my actual work"?

Leon

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

Applicant

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

Wulfrun_Phil

Another way of looking at that YouGov poll:

58% Labour-led coalition parties
35% Right wing parties
6% UK wreckers
1% Others

So the parties which it could be reasonably assumed would be willing to participate in a Labour-led coalition, that's Labour, the LDs and Greens, are 23% ahead of the Right.

Leon

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

Applicant

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Another way of looking at that YouGov poll:

58% Labour-led coalition parties
35% Right wing parties
6% UK wreckers
1% Others

So the parties which it could be reasonably assumed would be willing to participate in a Labour-led coalition, that's Labour, the LDs and Greens, are 23% ahead of the Right.

Yes, keep talking like the LDs are just an adjunct to Labour and see how that works for you.

Mexicanpete

Leon said:

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

Calm down dear.

northern_monkey

Leon said:

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

Yeah that’s bollocks. It’s coke. Coke’s everywhere. Coke and ten pints and being an arsehole in the first place. A combustible mixture.

kle4

Leon said:

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

A refrain also commonly seen with a 'No one listens to/cares what you have to say Prime Minister/Leader of the Opposition. Also, you are dangerous as people follow your example exactly'.

I think the PM has acted disgracefully, but people are not such big children they only act because of him.

boulay

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

“Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?”

Because everyone keeps ramming down their throats to “Abide with Mykonos”

Leon

northern_monkey said:

Leon said:

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

Yeah that’s bollocks. It’s coke. Coke’s everywhere. Coke and ten pints and being an arsehole in the first place. A combustible mixture.

Yep. A close mate of mine was in Soho then Wembley for the euro finals and the violence and firework-up-his-arse guy. He reported that the coke taking was phenomenal and ubiquitous

He’s actually a football hooligan (seriously - like one of those older geezers in The Firm) and he told me that HE was scared. Which means it must have been pretty bad

He’s also been telling me about renewed football hooliganism for at least 5 years. So this jerk wanker lefty journalist blaming it on “Boris” is an ignorant fool who doesn’t even know his own sport.

The hooliganism has been increasing for a while and it has now surfaced and become publicly visible, finally

kle4

Leon said:

northern_monkey said:

Leon said:

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

Yeah that’s bollocks. It’s coke. Coke’s everywhere. Coke and ten pints and being an arsehole in the first place. A combustible mixture.

Yep. A close mate of mine was in Soho then Wembley for the euro finals and the violence and firework-up-his-arse guy. He reported that the coke taking was phenomenal and ubiquitous

He’s actually a football hooligan (seriously - like one of those older geezers in The Firm) and he told me that HE was scared. Which means it must have been pretty bad

He’s also been telling me about renewed football hooliganism for at least 5 years. So this jerk wanker lefty journalist blaming it on “Boris” is an ignorant fool who doesn’t even know his own sport.

The hooliganism has been increasing for a while and it has now surfaced and become publicly visible, finally

Last 5 years? Brexit. Ergo Boris's fault.

HYUFD

Not a great Yougov for the Tories certainly, 31% would be back to 2001 levels and barely above their 1997 voteshare.

Techne a bit better for them at 35%

Scott_xP

Leon said:

He’s also been telling me about renewed football hooliganism for at least 5 years.

So, since the vote then...

NerysHughes

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

As I said earlier the press/tv were not interested in any risk assessment, they wanted full lockdown and to blame politicians for all Covid deaths, (as did many on this site).

In that atmosphere it would have been extremely difficult for a politician to make the argument, despite its validity, for less restrictions.

Carnyx

Selebian said:

DavidL said:

First?

Oh yes, I couldn't have done this without my family, my parents, my work colleagues and everyone else who distracts me from my actual work. Thanks to them all.

Do the good people of PB not deserve a more specific mention than "everyone else who distracts me from my actual work"?

Lumped in with Jehovah's Witnesses, meter-readers and dodgy driveway guys.

DecrepiterJohnL

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

Applicant

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

Pro_Rata

On topic:

Sleazy, broken Tories on the slide - specifically Wilfred's slide in the back garden.

kle4

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Applicant

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

DecrepiterJohnL

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

Do Kiss and Absolute Radio have hour-long news and current affairs programmes featuring interviews with government ministers, or are they music stations with a minute or two of headlines every hour?

northern_monkey

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

I was looking at the latest Rajar figures the other day and was surprised to see that commercial radio stations have a very slightly bigger audience than the Beeb, IIRC. I can’t stand commercial radio, the adverts do my nut in. Much like commercial TV.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between listening choice between commercial/non-commercial and political leanings? I dunno, just speculating. Would the govt expect an easier ride from Bauer and the like? Don’t listen to them, as I say, so I have no idea. What does PB think?

OnlyLivingBoy

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

No! One of the great things about listening to Magic (apart from them playing more of the songs you love) is that you are fairly unlikely to be confronted by the sound of Johnson, Rees-Mogg or any of the other freaks and ghouls that currently populate the Cabinet. This move could prompt a rethink of my in-car listening choice.

SandyRentool

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

Looking at that beer, I can only conclude that you enjoy head.

DecrepiterJohnL

northern_monkey said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

I was looking at the latest Rajar figures the other day and was surprised to see that commercial radio stations have a very slightly bigger audience than the Beeb, IIRC. I can’t stand commercial radio, the adverts do my nut in. Much like commercial TV.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between listening choice between commercial/non-commercial and political leanings? I dunno, just speculating. Would the govt expect an easier ride from Bauer and the like? Don’t listen to them, as I say, so I have no idea. What does PB think?

Iain Dale and Andrew Neil discuss the recent explosion (well, increase) in news and current affairs stations on Spectator TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZ11ucO4v8&t=1807s

kle4

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

That doesn't counter the point - some people would have been both anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine, and as you note some were not, therefore it is not automatically a 'smear' for someone who was anti-lockdown to be called an anti-vaxxer, it matters whether the smearer is labelling anyone or being more targeted. Your initial point was simply that people who were sceptical were smeared, but some will have been accurately labelled, which your second point addresses but not the first.

TOPPING

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

I. Have. Actually. Been. There.

Perhaps to that very restaurant.

And yes it is fine, a bit touristy (there is a Mark Warner camp up the hill) but fantastic nevertheless.

Does having been to one of @Leon's destinations put me into a special PB category? One that I can put on my calling card?

Applicant

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

Do Kiss and Absolute Radio have hour-long news and current affairs programmes featuring interviews with government ministers, or are they music stations with a minute or two of headlines every hour?

The latter, but there's no reason why they couldn't include snippets of an interview rather than having a newsreader quoting what has been said on another channel.

Applicant

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

That doesn't counter the point - some people would have been both anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine, and as you note some were not, therefore it is not automatically a 'smear' for someone who was anti-lockdown to be called an anti-vaxxer, it matters whether the smearer is labelling anyone or being more targeted. Your initial point was simply that people who were sceptical were smeared, but some will have been accurately labelled, which your second point addresses but not the first.

Oh, FFS. Shall I reword my original comment with one extra word and see if you can continue to pick holes? Since it's pretty obvious that this is what I meant.

The smearing of all people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

Eabhal

A concerning "now" at the end of this thread by Devi Sridhar:

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1527664698186948608?t=Bzd2q2v-CrttZIuagOl9-g&s=19

DecrepiterJohnL

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

It was indeed possible. Donald Trump was a leading example. However, there was a distinct cluster that had swallowed the alt-right kool-aid and were anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown as well as pro-Trump and pro-Brexit. Russian trolls might have been involved.

Cookie

northern_monkey said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

I was looking at the latest Rajar figures the other day and was surprised to see that commercial radio stations have a very slightly bigger audience than the Beeb, IIRC. I can’t stand commercial radio, the adverts do my nut in. Much like commercial TV.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between listening choice between commercial/non-commercial and political leanings? I dunno, just speculating. Would the govt expect an easier ride from Bauer and the like? Don’t listen to them, as I say, so I have no idea. What does PB think?

I listen to Radio 6 in the house, XS Manchester in the car. Radio 6 is more my choice of music (though following the revamp three years ago is much less fun ghan it used to be in the morning, where it is sounding increasingly like a hen night) - XS is much more mainstream indie wigh a much narrower playlist. But as a non-leftie, I must admit that one of the positives of XS is that you don't feel like you are getting banged over the head by BBC worldview. XS doesn't judge you, it just asks that you listen to adverts for Race Leathers of Bolton Road, Darwen.

Leon

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

I. Have. Actually. Been. There.

Perhaps to that very restaurant.

And yes it is fine, a bit touristy (there is a Mark Warner camp up the hill) but fantastic nevertheless.

Does having been to one of @Leon's destinations put me into a special PB category? One that I can put on my calling card?

It is definitely touristy, but in a rather sleepy likeable way. At least so far

Also, everyone seems intensely happy that a decent summer season is probably underway. After two horrible years. So there is a generalised sense of Yay

Was it a boat that brought you here? Quite a few yachty types about

DecrepiterJohnL

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

Do Kiss and Absolute Radio have hour-long news and current affairs programmes featuring interviews with government ministers, or are they music stations with a minute or two of headlines every hour?

The latter, but there's no reason why they couldn't include snippets of an interview rather than having a newsreader quoting what has been said on another channel.

So is this Number 10's false equivalence we hear so much about?

Carnyx

Eabhal said:

A concerning "now" at the end of this thread by Devi Sridhar:

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1527664698186948608?t=Bzd2q2v-CrttZIuagOl9-g&s=19

My reading is 'this doesn't mean "lockdown-now"' - ie the sort of stuff presumably being written about in the papers.

TOPPING

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

Your point was always that people would lock themselves down regardless and hence you might as well have a government lockdown (you put forward that argument when people rallied against lockdowns - bonjour).

And that would be perfect. People decide to modify their behaviour and the government setting up a compensation scheme so that they don't suffer financially (another argument for govt lockdowns was that it was the only way to be able to compensate people).

The issue is not the lockdown - the issue is the laws dictating lockdown.

And as for segmentation, putting forward this as an alternative to mandatory lockdown was something that "we" were castigated for and we were characterised as anti-lockdown loons also at the time.

If you were going to mandate separation then make it illegal to hug granny but you yourself (fit, younger, etc) could go out clubbing if you wanted. Instead they said it's illegal to hug granny and you must stay at home also. Either way granny doesn't get hugged and I'm sure TfL for example could have made adjustments to keep night bus drivers safe from clubbers.

turbotubbs

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

A concerning "now" at the end of this thread by Devi Sridhar:

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1527664698186948608?t=Bzd2q2v-CrttZIuagOl9-g&s=19

My reading is 'this doesn't mean "lockdown-now"' - ie the sort of stuff presumably being written about in the papers.

Yes - I'd have been tempted to write it 'lockdown now' to emphasize its what some idiots are saying.

Applicant

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

It was indeed possible. Donald Trump was a leading example. However, there was a distinct cluster that had swallowed the alt-right kool-aid and were anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown as well as pro-Trump and pro-Brexit. Russian trolls might have been involved.

Right, and there were plenty on the left who were both anti-lockdown and anti-vax (for example, one P. Corbyn).

But from that it didn't follow that all anti-lockdowners were anti-vax.

TOPPING

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

I. Have. Actually. Been. There.

Perhaps to that very restaurant.

And yes it is fine, a bit touristy (there is a Mark Warner camp up the hill) but fantastic nevertheless.

Does having been to one of @Leon's destinations put me into a special PB category? One that I can put on my calling card?

It is definitely touristy, but in a rather sleepy likeable way. At least so far

Also, everyone seems intensely happy that a decent summer season is probably underway. After two horrible years. So there is a generalised sense of Yay

Was it a boat that brought you here? Quite a few yachty types about

No. I flew in. But yes I noticed some yachty totty around.

Carnyx

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

A concerning "now" at the end of this thread by Devi Sridhar:

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1527664698186948608?t=Bzd2q2v-CrttZIuagOl9-g&s=19

My reading is 'this doesn't mean "lockdown-now"' - ie the sort of stuff presumably being written about in the papers.

Yes - I'd have been tempted to write it 'lockdown now' to emphasize its what some idiots are saying.

Quite. THere's an *existing* vaccine [edit] as prof S indeed says, it doesn't seem to spread like covid, and being vaccinated against smallpox in the old days helps.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2321212-could-monkeypox-become-a-pandemic-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/

DecrepiterJohnL

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

Your point was always that people would lock themselves down regardless and hence you might as well have a government lockdown (you put forward that argument when people rallied against lockdowns - bonjour).

And that would be perfect. People decide to modify their behaviour and the government setting up a compensation scheme so that they don't suffer financially (another argument for govt lockdowns was that it was the only way to be able to compensate people).

The issue is not the lockdown - the issue is the laws dictating lockdown.

And as for segmentation, putting forward this as an alternative to mandatory lockdown was something that "we" were castigated for and we were characterised as anti-lockdown loons also at the time.

If you were going to mandate separation then make it illegal to hug granny but you yourself (fit, younger, etc) could go out clubbing if you wanted. Instead they said it's illegal to hug granny and you must stay at home also. Either way granny doesn't get hugged and I'm sure TfL for example could have made adjustments to keep night bus drivers safe from clubbers.

Your final sentence hits the nail somewhere near the head. Bus drivers were, iirc, among those more likely to get Covid in the first wave, so preventing public transport being rammed with revellers was a concern.

Carnyx

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

Your point was always that people would lock themselves down regardless and hence you might as well have a government lockdown (you put forward that argument when people rallied against lockdowns - bonjour).

And that would be perfect. People decide to modify their behaviour and the government setting up a compensation scheme so that they don't suffer financially (another argument for govt lockdowns was that it was the only way to be able to compensate people).

The issue is not the lockdown - the issue is the laws dictating lockdown.

And as for segmentation, putting forward this as an alternative to mandatory lockdown was something that "we" were castigated for and we were characterised as anti-lockdown loons also at the time.

If you were going to mandate separation then make it illegal to hug granny but you yourself (fit, younger, etc) could go out clubbing if you wanted. Instead they said it's illegal to hug granny and you must stay at home also. Either way granny doesn't get hugged and I'm sure TfL for example could have made adjustments to keep night bus drivers safe from clubbers.

Your final sentence hits the nail somewhere near the head. Bus drivers were, iirc, among those more likely to get Covid in the first wave, so preventing public transport being rammed with revellers was a concern.

Also future planning should take that into account - mandatory conversion packs for public transport where needed, though it could also be handled as part of ventilation improvements (needed on many anyway).

DecrepiterJohnL

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

It was indeed possible. Donald Trump was a leading example. However, there was a distinct cluster that had swallowed the alt-right kool-aid and were anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown as well as pro-Trump and pro-Brexit. Russian trolls might have been involved.

Right, and there were plenty on the left who were both anti-lockdown and anti-vax (for example, one P. Corbyn).

But from that it didn't follow that all anti-lockdowners were anti-vax.

And if you read my reply carefully, I acknowledged their existence and even gave an example of a leading politician who was anti-lockdown and pro-vaccination, viz President Trump.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Aha. Ahahahahahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahah fucking eejit


“My view on the increase of civic disturbances: it’s not just in football grounds. When a government breaks its own rules and there are no real consequences for those actions, society follows. Johnson has given people a licence to try and do whatever they want.”

https://twitter.com/simon_hughes__/status/1527530804187996161?s=21&t=ISOMadydnfgvQiBMc8NCcQ

Next, how Brexit is responsible for Liverpool fans being philistine c*nts that boo beautiful hymns

...I think the PM has acted disgracefully, but people are not such big children they only act because of him.

Those who observe various members of his cabinet might take issue with that.

Scott_xP

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Leon

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

I. Have. Actually. Been. There.

Perhaps to that very restaurant.

And yes it is fine, a bit touristy (there is a Mark Warner camp up the hill) but fantastic nevertheless.

Does having been to one of @Leon's destinations put me into a special PB category? One that I can put on my calling card?

It is definitely touristy, but in a rather sleepy likeable way. At least so far

Also, everyone seems intensely happy that a decent summer season is probably underway. After two horrible years. So there is a generalised sense of Yay

Was it a boat that brought you here? Quite a few yachty types about

No. I flew in. But yes I noticed some yachty totty around.

Into Preveza? That’s another nice town. It is a truly pleasant part of Greece, like Corfu over the water but lacking the mad crowds and development, thank God

TOPPING

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

Your point was always that people would lock themselves down regardless and hence you might as well have a government lockdown (you put forward that argument when people rallied against lockdowns - bonjour).

And that would be perfect. People decide to modify their behaviour and the government setting up a compensation scheme so that they don't suffer financially (another argument for govt lockdowns was that it was the only way to be able to compensate people).

The issue is not the lockdown - the issue is the laws dictating lockdown.

And as for segmentation, putting forward this as an alternative to mandatory lockdown was something that "we" were castigated for and we were characterised as anti-lockdown loons also at the time.

If you were going to mandate separation then make it illegal to hug granny but you yourself (fit, younger, etc) could go out clubbing if you wanted. Instead they said it's illegal to hug granny and you must stay at home also. Either way granny doesn't get hugged and I'm sure TfL for example could have made adjustments to keep night bus drivers safe from clubbers.

Your final sentence hits the nail somewhere near the head. Bus drivers were, iirc, among those more likely to get Covid in the first wave, so preventing public transport being rammed with revellers was a concern.

Yes and at a trivial cost relatively that could have been addressed.

Applicant

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

It was indeed possible. Donald Trump was a leading example. However, there was a distinct cluster that had swallowed the alt-right kool-aid and were anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown as well as pro-Trump and pro-Brexit. Russian trolls might have been involved.

Right, and there were plenty on the left who were both anti-lockdown and anti-vax (for example, one P. Corbyn).

But from that it didn't follow that all anti-lockdowners were anti-vax.

And if you read my reply carefully, I acknowledged their existence and even gave an example of a leading politician who was anti-lockdown and pro-vaccination, viz President Trump.

Right. But my point is nothing more than that the existence of people who were anti-lockdown and anti-vax was used by some to smear all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

Jim_Miller

Here's a stray thought on COVID prevention: What if anyone who was infected could sue the person who infected them, especially if that person has acted recklessly? For example, it is clear that "super spreader" Donald Trump was responsible for a number of infections. I think he owes those people compensation.

Similarly, Rand Paul, suspecting he had COVID, went to exercise in the Senate gym, without wearing a mask, and without warning anyone there.

(I wouldn't want either of them for a neighbor.)

I am not recommending this positively, as I am still thinking about the likely effects. And I recognize that the US has far too many lawsuits, including the one in which a cat won a big settlement, a couple of weeks ago. But it could, in principle, encourage more responsible behavior.

(The cat story, for the curious: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/owner-miska-notorious-bellevue-cat-wins-125000-settlement/CHCLDLY42JGFNALHVRMVSYLMF4/ )

algarkirk

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

On the whole both broadcasters and politicians seem to act as if politicians appearing on the media is a sort of right that they hold alongside each other in a sort of competition for the plums, and that this confers a massive honour and privilege upon the humble serfs who gratefully watch and listen.

I don't see it that way. Does anyone? The government's platform is parliament, which is public and has its own channel, and the media reports anything interesting that they say. And their accountability is there and its select committees and of course to the serfs who vote. Their unfiltered media performances are risible, as is most of the questioning.

northern_monkey

Cookie said:

northern_monkey said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

I was looking at the latest Rajar figures the other day and was surprised to see that commercial radio stations have a very slightly bigger audience than the Beeb, IIRC. I can’t stand commercial radio, the adverts do my nut in. Much like commercial TV.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between listening choice between commercial/non-commercial and political leanings? I dunno, just speculating. Would the govt expect an easier ride from Bauer and the like? Don’t listen to them, as I say, so I have no idea. What does PB think?

I listen to Radio 6 in the house, XS Manchester in the car. Radio 6 is more my choice of music (though following the revamp three years ago is much less fun ghan it used to be in the morning, where it is sounding increasingly like a hen night) - XS is much more mainstream indie wigh a much narrower playlist. But as a non-leftie, I must admit that one of the positives of XS is that you don't feel like you are getting banged over the head by BBC worldview. XS doesn't judge you, it just asks that you listen to adverts for Race Leathers of Bolton Road, Darwen.

I agree entirely about 6Music, which I still listen to a lot of. I put it down to me getting older - I still love the ethos 6Music has of playing left field alternative stuff, but a lot of the alternative left field stuff they play leaves me cold. Mary Anne Hobbs I find unlistenable. But I’m trying to be better at finding new music that suits my middle-aged palette but isn’t MOR AOR. The Blessed Madonna on a Saturday night is electronic but very good.

I miss Radcliffe and Maconie on weekday afternoons.

I’d hate to be listening to the same old songs for the rest of my life, as much as I love them I don’t want to stagnate.

And yes they do bash you over the head with the BBC worldview. I am a lefty but if does get a bit wearing sometimes.

Nigelb

“You cannot have a successful society outside of the Christian moral order.”
https://twitter.com/leftofcentermi/status/1527390618984402944

Gay marriage leads to a culture of death, apparently.
In Michigan, anyway.

TOPPING

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

I. Have. Actually. Been. There.

Perhaps to that very restaurant.

And yes it is fine, a bit touristy (there is a Mark Warner camp up the hill) but fantastic nevertheless.

Does having been to one of @Leon's destinations put me into a special PB category? One that I can put on my calling card?

It is definitely touristy, but in a rather sleepy likeable way. At least so far

Also, everyone seems intensely happy that a decent summer season is probably underway. After two horrible years. So there is a generalised sense of Yay

Was it a boat that brought you here? Quite a few yachty types about

No. I flew in. But yes I noticed some yachty totty around.

Into Preveza? That’s another nice town. It is a truly pleasant part of Greece, like Corfu over the water but lacking the mad crowds and development, thank God

Yep to Preveza and yes it looked v nice as I sped out of it - sounds like it was a shame I didn't stay long(er) there.

SeaShantyIrish2

AP - Ballot fiasco delays results in Oregon, vote-by-mail pioneer

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-oregon-primary-congress-78a759dc0b2c59b73a2259153fb8dd80

OREGON CITY, Ore. (AP) — Thousands of ballots with blurry barcodes that can’t be read by vote-counting machines will delay results by weeks in a key U.S. House race in Oregon’s primary election . . .

The fiasco affects up to 60,000 ballots, or two-thirds of the roughly 90,000 returned so far in Oregon’s third-largest county . . . 200 Clackamas County employees were getting a crash course Thursday in vote-counting after being redeployed to address the crisis.

Elections workers must pull the faulty ballots from batches of 125, transfer the voter’s intent to a fresh ballot, then double-check their entries — a painstaking process that could draw the election out until June 13, when Oregon certifies its vote. The workers operate in pairs, one Democrat and one Republican, in two shifts of 11 hours a day. . . . By Wednesday night, workers had counted 15,649. . . .

The debacle has stunned Oregon. . . . It’s also thrown into question a key U.S. House race in a redrawn district that includes a large portion of Clackamas County, which stretches nearly 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers), from Portland’s liberal southern suburbs to rural conservative communities on the flanks of Mount Hood.

In the Democratic primary for Oregon’s 5th Congressional District, seven-term Rep. Kurt Schrader, a moderate, was trailing in the vote behind progressive challenger Jamie McLeod-Skinner. The outcome could have an outsized impact in November, with the possibility that voters could flip the seat for the GOP.

Hall said the problem came to light May 3, when workers put the first ballots returned through the vote-counting machine. About 70 or 80 ballots from each batch of 125 were spit out as unreadable because their barcodes were more faint and slightly blurred. It was too late to print and mail new ballots, she said.

As Election Day approached and ballots stacked up, Hall said she allowed elections workers to take the weekend off because just three people signed up to work Saturday or Sunday. “We have people mostly between the ages of 70 and 85” and they need rest, she said.

he secretary of state’s office said Hall declined help, saying Clackamas County could handle the situation. Hall told The Associated Press several county workers were assigned to the ballot problem May 11, a week after it surfaced.

Kathy Selvaggio, who lives in the county’s more urban and affluent suburbs, peered through the windows Thursday to watch the vote tally.

“Mail-in voting works, it works well here, but it does undermine my faith in (Hall),” said Selvaggio, who was there as a volunteer for the McLeod-Skinner campaign. . . .

Taz

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

rcs1000

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

There were all kinds of crazy people: some thought Covid came from 5G, some thought vaccines were mind control, some thought that lockdowns had no impact on the spread of Covid, and some thought that Covid was a visitation from God for our sins.

So I'm not really sure what your point is.

Leon

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

One for @BlancheLivermore

I’m in Sivota. A tiny resort on the Northeast Greek coast really near Albania and it’s lovely

Why do people neglect the Greek mainland and always go to the islands?

I’m glad they do. A very charming hotel room here is £50 a night, 1 minute from the marina and the waters and the fish tavernas

I. Have. Actually. Been. There.

Perhaps to that very restaurant.

And yes it is fine, a bit touristy (there is a Mark Warner camp up the hill) but fantastic nevertheless.

Does having been to one of @Leon's destinations put me into a special PB category? One that I can put on my calling card?

It is definitely touristy, but in a rather sleepy likeable way. At least so far

Also, everyone seems intensely happy that a decent summer season is probably underway. After two horrible years. So there is a generalised sense of Yay

Was it a boat that brought you here? Quite a few yachty types about

No. I flew in. But yes I noticed some yachty totty around.

Into Preveza? That’s another nice town. It is a truly pleasant part of Greece, like Corfu over the water but lacking the mad crowds and development, thank God

Yep to Preveza and yes it looked v nice as I sped out of it - sounds like it was a shame I didn't stay long(er) there.

Preveza is a lot of fun. Authentically Greek and itself. Excellent restaurants and lots of buzzing bars full of young Greeks (and some tourists) and parts of the old town are exquisite

Great beaches if you walk around the headland

IshmaelZ

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi. The name in Gaelic is Mairi; a Mhairi is the vocative, but the half-arsed and ill-educated think the h makes the word look more full of Gaelicky goodness.

ohnotnow

northern_monkey said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

I was looking at the latest Rajar figures the other day and was surprised to see that commercial radio stations have a very slightly bigger audience than the Beeb, IIRC. I can’t stand commercial radio, the adverts do my nut in. Much like commercial TV.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between listening choice between commercial/non-commercial and political leanings? I dunno, just speculating. Would the govt expect an easier ride from Bauer and the like? Don’t listen to them, as I say, so I have no idea. What does PB think?

Do offices, warehouses and the like playing commercial stations count towards the figures? I've certainly worked places where some local-ish 'all your favourite inoffensive hits' stations played all day and night. Also hairdressers, cafe's and the like I guess.

Carnyx

rcs1000 said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

There were all kinds of crazy people: some thought Covid came from 5G, some thought vaccines were mind control, some thought that lockdowns had no impact on the spread of Covid, and some thought that Covid was a visitation from God for our sins.

So I'm not really sure what your point is.

Just reminded of one of Inverness's minor sights - but alas it has closed.

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/the-flat-earths-controversial-hq-in-inverness-appears-to-ha-242960/

"After the pandemic began, the shopfront carried the banner “humanity is not a virus” and pushed anti-vaccination messages, also claiming the virus and lockdown was fake and a means to terrorise the masses."

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

Not a great Yougov for the Tories certainly, 31% would be back to 2001 levels and barely above their 1997 voteshare.

Techne a bit better for them at 35%

Do we still think there will be a snap election on news of Starmer and Rayner's convictions?

Applicant

rcs1000 said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

rcs1000 said:

Re lockdowns:

I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that governments - at the start - didn't know very much. And the fact that massive hospitals were being built in Wuhan and people were being welded inside their homes will have really weighed on politicians minds. (The bodies piling up in Milan and New York will have played a role too.)

But we did learn some things pretty quickly, that should have allowed a return to (somewhat) normal life.

The most obvious of which was that Covid didn't spread very easily outside. Sunlight and ventilation rapidly reduced concentrations to levels where infection was extremely unlikely.

Now, I get that stadiums might still have a concentration of people where it would have been a problem, but really - from very early on - we should have been allowing (even encouraging) people to get together and spend time outside.

Here in LA (and yes, I know the weather is better here) there were maybe six weeks through the pandemic when you couldn't go and sit outside at a restaurant or coffee shop with your friends. That made it massively less isolating, and probably had bugger all effect on spread.

A lot of people on here probably think of me as a lockdown hawk, because I take exception to people making crap innumerate arguments against trying to do anything to prevent the spread of a sufficiently deadly infectious virus, but I was one of those making the point that the government should have been positively encouraging social mixing outside as a better alternative to social mixing inside from an early stage.

I expect that the pro/anti lockdown arguments are going to continue indefinitely, and the less contentious things that were done wrong will receive much less attention, when the government could have done so much more on ventilation, filtering, meeting outside, blood oxygen monitoring, etc.

This is really important: if we'd done a better job of stratifying risk (and changing guidance) as new information came through, then we would probably have been able to do a better job at minimising people's loss of freedom.

But, as you say, we end up with a very polarised argument, with one either being forced to be in favour of massive lockdowns, or in favour of no restrictions whatsoever.

The smearing of people who were sceptical about the efficacy of lockdowns as "anti-vaxxers" was particularly egregious.

That would somewhat depend on the reasoning that was employed to make that sceptical point.

Not really, since it was possible to be anti-lockdown and pro-vaccine and there were people smearing all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax.

There were all kinds of crazy people: some thought Covid came from 5G, some thought vaccines were mind control, some thought that lockdowns had no impact on the spread of Covid, and some thought that Covid was a visitation from God for our sins.

So I'm not really sure what your point is.

Lockdown zealots used the existence of anti-vax anti-lockdowners to smear all anti-lockdowners as anti-vax so that their beloved tool of social control was spared critical examination.

And anti-lockdowners generally didn't believe "that lockdowns had no impact on the spread of Covid", but I guess you knew that already.

Nigelb

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi. The name in Gaelic is Mairi; a Mhairi is the vocative, but the half-arsed and ill-educated think the h makes the word look more full of Gaelicky goodness.

And what kind of person says call me Ishmael, with a Z ?

Big_G_NorthWales

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

SeaShantyIrish2

Meanwhile, in old Pennsylvania, am starting to think that Dr. Oz is gonna retain his lead over Mr. McCormick . . . at least going into the recount . . .

AP - Oz, McCormick tied in Pa. with thousands of ballots to count

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Vote counting in Pennsylvania’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate dragged into a third day as Dr. Mehmet Oz and former hedge fund CEO David McCormick remained essentially tied with thousands of ballots left to tally.

Oz, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, led McCormick by 1,122 votes, or 0.08 percentage points, out of 1,337,790 ballots counted as of midday Thursday. The race remained close enough to trigger Pennsylvania’s automatic recount law, with the separation between the candidates inside the law’s 0.5% margin. . . .

. . . . Pennsylvania’s Department of State, which oversees elections, said Thursday that there are about 38,000 mail-in and absentee ballots — 8,700 in the Republican primary — left to be counted. . . .

Trump has encouraged Oz to preemptively declare victory — much like the former president did in the 2020 election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. But Oz has made no indication of doing so, and McCormick, when asked about it, shrugged it off, saying, “I’ve been rough and tumble before in my life, and I’m ready for it.”

Statewide, McCormick was doing better than Oz among mail ballots, while Oz was doing better among votes cast on election day. Counties also must still count provisional, overseas and military absentee ballots before they certify their results to the state by next Tuesday’s deadline.

County election officials have counted almost all ballots cast in person on election day, with the exception of Allegheny County, according to an Associated Press survey of county election officials.

McCormick leads Oz in Allegheny County among mail ballots and those that were cast on election day.

Delaware County and Philadelphia also have some precinct results from election day still left to be counted, according to the McCormick campaign.

Republican turnout exceeded 38%, the highest midterm primary turnout in at least two decades, boosted by more than $70 million in advertising and other spending in the Senate GOP campaign.

Oz was helped by the endorsement from Trump, while a super PAC backing McCormick weighed in heavily, spending about $20 million, much of it to attack Oz.

SSI - think that outstanding PDay precinct votes mentioned above may have been counted by now (12.30pm PA time). As of this moment, NYT reporting


Mehmet Oz 418,165 31.2%
Dave McCormick 417,045 31.1%
margin Oz v McC +1,020

Estimated 2k remaining to count in Allegheny Co (Pittsburgh) and 1k or less everywhere else.

Believe McC camp is hopeful the Hedge-Funder will gain over the TV Doctor in ballots cast by active military, a category that tends to vote Republican AND which McC targetted. Pointing out that Dr Oz was himself a military veteran . . . of the Turkish Army.

boulay

Nigelb said:

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi. The name in Gaelic is Mairi; a Mhairi is the vocative, but the half-arsed and ill-educated think the h makes the word look more full of Gaelicky goodness.

And what kind of person says call me Ishmael, with a Z ?

I believe it was Herman Melville trying to ride on the coat tails and find some success on the back of the Denzel Washington biopic of “Malcolm X”.

kyf_100

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Carnyx

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi. The name in Gaelic is Mairi; a Mhairi is the vocative, but the half-arsed and ill-educated think the h makes the word look more full of Gaelicky goodness.

Oh, quite so in strict grammar and spelling, but the orthography is now well out into the community and has a life of its own. It's actually quite common - a quick freebie check confirms 17 Mhairi Blacks alone in Scotland.

Mexicanpete

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

This is the incumbent's problem.

Starmer, if he is still LOTO, just has to sit on the fence and nod, at which PB Conservatives consider him very good.

Carnyx

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

Entirely up to Mr Johnson and the Conservatives to resign for the good of the country.

Scott_xP

IshmaelZ said:

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi.

I was at school with a Mhairi, and I worked with someone who pronounced it Varry

Big_G_NorthWales

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Because you will lose your job as the employer would have to pass on the increases to consumers already squeezed and unable to pay for the service you provide

Big_G_NorthWales

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

Entirely up to Mr Johnson and the Conservatives to resign for the good of the country.

The make up of the government does not change the economic questions and by the way, how is Scotrail cancelling 700 journeys success for the SNP railway policy ?

pigeon

Another milestone is passed today in the long process of Covid disappearing in society's rear view mirror. Some random impulse motivated me to look at the UK Government data dashboard for the first time in months this evening, and I chanced upon an announcement that Northern Ireland is to stop publishing most Covid data from today. This means that official UK-wide statistics on tests, cases and deaths will also formally end.

I'm trying now to remember when it was that all the news bulletins quietly dropped the relentless daily corpse counts. Was it some time around Easter? I've not been paying so much attention to any of this kind of thing of late.

Applicant

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Because my job involves serving the public, not punishing them for a dispute that (a) they have no part in, and (b) they can't do the first thing to resolve.

kyf_100

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Because you will lose your job as the employer would have to pass on the increases to consumers already squeezed and unable to pay for the service you provide

So what you're saying is, when my rent goes up by 10%, other costs by 20%, etc, I should just sit there like a mug and accept it?

At the bare minimum you resign and go work somewhere else who will pay you more.

I do not have a problem with people asking for pay rises that match the cost of living. If the company won't pay, you go elsewhere.

Luckyguy1983

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi. The name in Gaelic is Mairi; a Mhairi is the vocative, but the half-arsed and ill-educated think the h makes the word look more full of Gaelicky goodness.

Oh, quite so in strict grammar and spelling, but the orthography is now well out into the community and has a life of its own. It's actually quite common - a quick freebie check confirms 17 Mhairi Blacks alone in Scotland.

It is confusing though, because I know a 'Vari' (phonetically) whose name is spelled Mhairi.

dixiedean

northern_monkey said:

Cookie said:

northern_monkey said:

Applicant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

This bit seems rather sensible:

Officials are also considering a wider review of the morning broadcast round. One source said syndicated news bulletins from Bauer Media, which owns the stations Kiss and Absolute Radio, received four times as many listeners as Ms Burley’s programme. In future, ministerial interviews may be allocated based on their ratings.

I was looking at the latest Rajar figures the other day and was surprised to see that commercial radio stations have a very slightly bigger audience than the Beeb, IIRC. I can’t stand commercial radio, the adverts do my nut in. Much like commercial TV.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between listening choice between commercial/non-commercial and political leanings? I dunno, just speculating. Would the govt expect an easier ride from Bauer and the like? Don’t listen to them, as I say, so I have no idea. What does PB think?

I listen to Radio 6 in the house, XS Manchester in the car. Radio 6 is more my choice of music (though following the revamp three years ago is much less fun ghan it used to be in the morning, where it is sounding increasingly like a hen night) - XS is much more mainstream indie wigh a much narrower playlist. But as a non-leftie, I must admit that one of the positives of XS is that you don't feel like you are getting banged over the head by BBC worldview. XS doesn't judge you, it just asks that you listen to adverts for Race Leathers of Bolton Road, Darwen.

I agree entirely about 6Music, which I still listen to a lot of. I put it down to me getting older - I still love the ethos 6Music has of playing left field alternative stuff, but a lot of the alternative left field stuff they play leaves me cold. Mary Anne Hobbs I find unlistenable. But I’m trying to be better at finding new music that suits my middle-aged palette but isn’t MOR AOR. The Blessed Madonna on a Saturday night is electronic but very good.

I miss Radcliffe and Maconie on weekday afternoons.

I’d hate to be listening to the same old songs for the rest of my life, as much as I love them I don’t want to stagnate.

And yes they do bash you over the head with the BBC worldview. I am a lefty but if does get a bit wearing sometimes.

Yes to Blessed Madonna.

HYUFD

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Not a great Yougov for the Tories certainly, 31% would be back to 2001 levels and barely above their 1997 voteshare.

Techne a bit better for them at 35%

Do we still think there will be a snap election on news of Starmer and Rayner's convictions?

I doubt there will be any further fines

dixiedean

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Because you will lose your job as the employer would have to pass on the increases to consumers already squeezed and unable to pay for the service you provide

Well. That very much depends on the service, doesn't it?
It is unlikely the entire rail system would simply cease.

GaryL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Because you will lose your job as the employer would have to pass on the increases to consumers already squeezed and unable to pay for the service you provide

most people dont think like that though. They just see themselves as getting poorer

Daveyboy1961

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

I do not want to trigger Mhairi Black but...

No10 blocks ministers from Sky News after cost of living ‘gotcha’ interview
Downing Street reportedly angry over treatment of Rachel Maclean, who suggested people struggling to pay bills should work more hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/20/no-10-blocks-ministers-sky-news-cost-of-living-gotcha-interview/ (£££)

FPT, it's simply bloody illiterate to name yourself or your offspring Mhairi. The name in Gaelic is Mairi; a Mhairi is the vocative, but the half-arsed and ill-educated think the h makes the word look more full of Gaelicky goodness.

Oh, quite so in strict grammar and spelling, but the orthography is now well out into the community and has a life of its own. It's actually quite common - a quick freebie check confirms 17 Mhairi Blacks alone in Scotland.

I thought all spelling rules were off when people's names are involved. As far as grammar is concerned, English doesn't have endings for cases so it's irrelevant anyway. (apart from s for plural)

Big_G_NorthWales

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

If your rent went up by 10% this year, your food bill by 20%, your petrol by 25% etc, but your employer gave you a 2% pay rise, why wouldn't you strike unless your employer met your cost of living increases?

Because you will lose your job as the employer would have to pass on the increases to consumers already squeezed and unable to pay for the service you provide

So what you're saying is, when my rent goes up by 10%, other costs by 20%, etc, I should just sit there like a mug and accept it?

At the bare minimum you resign and go work somewhere else who will pay you more.

I do not have a problem with people asking for pay rises that match the cost of living. If the company won't pay, you go elsewhere.

In many cases that is the reality of the present crisis but of course finding a higher paid job elsewhere is a good solution if there is one available

dixiedean

On topic.
Rather than the headline, what's been remarkable is how stable the polls have been the past few months, despite the barrage of events.
It's been Labour c. 5% ahead for some time now.

pigeon

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Ministers fear ‘biggest rail strike in modern history’
Freight could be prioritised over passengers to counter food and petrol shortages

Fears are growing that union action on the railways billed as the biggest in modern history will bring the UK to a standstill, with empty shelves and petrol pumps running dry. Plans are being drawn up for freight trains to take priority over passenger services to keep supermarket shelves stocked...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-fear-biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-509fzzzlp

Good on the RMT. Fight for the workers. Why not maximise their leverage to get a fair deal.

In a low inflationary environment low wage increases are tolerable but not in the current environment and cutting the numbers of skilled professionals involved in track maintenance is a battle worth fighting for

I am not at all sure this is a good news story for the country not least wage increases will add to inflation depending on the % demanded

I have said several times that Starmer and labour have not been tested on making unpopular decisions, and it will be interesting which side of the argument they come down on and how it is received in the country

The Government and businesses alike are eternally arguing for wage restraint. On the one hand, if inflation is low then the plebs don't need more money. On the other, if inflation is high then the plebs must not have more money, because that will simply stoke inflation. Either way, wages must be suppressed.

These rules do not, of course, apply to asset values, or to the pay, allowances and bonuses of special sunflowers such as CEOs of large companies and our beloved MPs.