@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
83% of current LAB voters in latest YouGov say Brexit wrong. Starmer is getting out of line with his voters
If Starmer says Brexit was wrong and wants to rejoin the EU and EEA and restore free movement, the redwall seats fall back into the lap of say new Tory PM Mordaunt and the Tories win a historic and unprecedented 5th general election victory
Not necessarily
Yes necessarily, 47% do not want to rejoin the EU, given over 400 constituencies voted Leave, that is still likely a narrow majority of seats voting Leave, so backing rejoin and free movement suicide under FPTP
Regarding price elasticity of petrol are there any recent figures for usage? Anecdotally, I've noticed no fall during peak times. But the dual carriageway has seemed noticeably quieter off peak. Or maybe I didn't pay attention before?
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
83% of current LAB voters in latest YouGov say Brexit wrong. Starmer is getting out of line with his voters
Yes, I agree. I can't work out whether he is being stupid or mendacious
If he reaches power he will shift towards a much more pro-EU stance, willingly or not
Could it be that Starmer is maybe - at least politically - a wee bit SMARTER than you or even OGH on this?
Just come out of a meeting and turned on the LBC debate. After 5 minutes I have learned Fizzy Lizzy is hell bent on starting WW3.
Tugs' says Labour have been planning on concreting over the nation to resolve the housing crisis.
Mordaunt on now. She is very tongue tied and vague. Bored now.
Badenoch on housing. She is way the most articulate save for Rishi Rich. She's very good, shame she is a rabid right wing nutcase. She's boring me now too.
Liz Truss on housing she wants more high rise, but more practical than the rest.
Rishy Rich wants brown field and urban density and modular building. He is head and shoulders more impressive in presentation than ALL the rest. Very critical of how crap Labour housing policy has been in the last decade, housing will be much better under Richy Rich.
So for fluency it has to be Richy, Kemi, Fizzy, Penny and Tom TIT. Penny very disappointing.
I do wonder if after all this the membership realise Rishi is actually half competent and might be better sticking with him.
Competence is NOT a core "true" Tory value. Not in THIS millennium, at least so far.
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
83% of current LAB voters in latest YouGov say Brexit wrong. Starmer is getting out of line with his voters
Yes, I agree. I can't work out whether he is being stupid or mendacious
If he reaches power he will shift towards a much more pro-EU stance, willingly or not
Could it be that Starmer is maybe - at least politically - a wee bit SMARTER than you or even OGH on this?
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
83% of current LAB voters in latest YouGov say Brexit wrong. Starmer is getting out of line with his voters
Yes, I agree. I can't work out whether he is being stupid or mendacious
If he reaches power he will shift towards a much more pro-EU stance, willingly or not
Could it be that Starmer is maybe - at least politically - a wee bit SMARTER than you or even OGH on this?
He's Labour Boris Johnson.
An unscrupulous, unprincipled chancer who will do anything, say anything and screw over anyone to get himself into the top.
That may win an election for Labour. I leave it to you to determine if that's a good thing or not.
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
Regarding price elasticity of petrol are there any recent figures for usage? Anecdotally, I've noticed no fall during peak times. But the dual carriageway has seemed noticeably quieter off peak. Or maybe I didn't pay attention before?
My usage for one remains remarkably constant whatever the price.
The dual hurdles make it nearly impossible for Biden to follow through on selling the fighters to the NATO ally as lawmakers express exasperation over Ankara’s purchase of advanced Russian equipment, violating the territory of its neighbours and its drift toward autocracy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan...
This is not going to make Erdogan happy, after he was persuaded to back down on NATO membership for Sweden and Finland.
Some of that 'advanced Russian equipment' are S-400 SAM systems. The same system that (allegedly) the Russians are pi**ed off about because it cannot shoot down HIMARS shells.
Erdogan might have bought a pup...
The S-400 is failing badly against the HIMARS. Which is hillarious, because each S400 defence rocket is an order of magnitide more expensive than the rockets the enemy is facing. They’ll be out of them soon enough, chasing rainbows.
Sadly, the Russians appear to be using Surface-to-Air missiles in a Surface-to-Ground role. They are designed for this, but are apparently highly inaccurate.
At this stage it seems the Russians are not even trying to pretend they are going after military targets. They just want to destroy Ukraine.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I wonder how old BR is. 39?
Mind, I'm at least two decades older, and I'm infuriated by the Conservatives' taxation policy in favour of wealthy pensioners!
Is it possible that whilst Mordaunt may bring back the Blue Wall, the Red Wall who after all backed Boris in the first place are going to decide to abstain?
If she goes for a big cut in fuel duty the red wall will be all ears.
Surely someone has to say it at the hustings tonight?
FUEL DUTY, you idiots.
(At her launch, Penny suggested cutting VAT on petrol in half. Which does nothing for the hauliers).
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
If polling remains at this level, something's gotta give
I am slightly hopeful of an unwind to 2016 when we didn't know what we wanted but we mainly, I think, thought that Norway EEA EFTA whatevs *was* Brexit, before that demented cow started giving it the BREXIT MEAN'S BREXIT red white n blue stuff. Question is who has the skill to arrange this without giving the game away. Answer doesn't look obvious.
Mr Meeks is right that the political classes are late to the game
Starmer, if he is canny (really not sure he is) should go on the front foot. Say "there are clearly misgivings about the kind of Brexit we have, we are not rejoining but the single market is an option, I will ask the people blah blah"
More potently, I reckon the Brexit regret will prove a temporary window,: a window which will eventually close
Brexit WILL settle down and mentally bed in, and the idea of getting closer to the EU or submitting to the ECJ in any way, will become ludicrous.
So the Remainers don't have long to move. A few years
On the contrary, the move is very much in the other direction. Politicians cannot ignore polling like this forever, or at least not if they want to win an election.
Predicated on the notion that the electorate views Europe as a priority and wants to spend lots more time talking about it. Not convinced.
Regarding price elasticity of petrol are there any recent figures for usage? Anecdotally, I've noticed no fall during peak times. But the dual carriageway has seemed noticeably quieter off peak. Or maybe I didn't pay attention before?
My usage for one remains remarkably constant whatever the price.
Exactly. The amount of discretionary petrol usage is tiny. The PED of 1.1 - the more notable change in behaviour is as likely to be people driving more slowly on the motorways, as opposed to not making journeys because of the petrol price.
It is deeply ironic that we may end up rejoining the EU just as it turns into uninhabitable desert, and they all want to move to the blissfully temperate British Isles
Blissfully temperate northern part of the British isles. Carribean temperatures to go with the turquoise sea and white sand of Luskintyre..
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
It is deeply ironic that we may end up rejoining the EU just as it turns into uninhabitable desert, and they all want to move to the blissfully temperate British Isles
Blissfully temperate northern part of the British isles. Carribean temperatures to go with the turquoise sea and white sand of Luskentyre..
Would ruin the fecking place of course.
Plenty of peelywally maidens wearing traditional Rangers and Celtic leis, anyway.
No watering the garden either this w/e - was drizzling most of the morning, with some sessions of definite pissing down.
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
83% of current LAB voters in latest YouGov say Brexit wrong. Starmer is getting out of line with his voters
6% of Remain voters think it was the right decision. 15% of Leave voters think it was the wrong decision.
Sure, 15% is a reasonable amount, but the vast majority of those who "won" the vote are still on board, so trying to reopen the issue remains hugely decisive.
Not sure it's a road that Labour want to go down, when they could probably reduce a huge amount of the impact of Brexit without reopening the yes/no debate.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
I'm sure that European gas rationing will vindicate Alistair Meeks's view that opinion is swinging behind rejoining.
Die Welt reports that among the EU's considered proposals are limiting temperatures this winter in civic and commercial buildings to nineteen degrees centigrade.
I'm sure all those pictures of Germans at their desks in puffa jackets will rally even more British voters to the EU's cause.
The German Social Democrats meanwhile are once again making noises about peace with Putin. Another big plus for remainers cause in Britain, surely.
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
To be fair he quite clearly misspoke ‘horror’ as ‘honour’ there and corrected himself.
Not for any moment shying away from what I see as his obvious declining faculties, but I don’t think a stumble over a word here or there is that instructive.
The “end of quote, repeat the line” stuff was much more problematic.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I never said don't treat oldies, but you don't need to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
In hindsight the NHS should treat people as well as it can, using triage if necessary, without a lockdown.
Treat the oldies, and everyone else, as well as you can, using triage where necessary, but don't shut society to do it.
Voluntary WfH etc is of course totally acceptable, without shutting schools or making it mandatory.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
I'm sure that European gas rationing will vindicate Alistair Meeks's view that opinion is swinging behind rejoining.
Die Welt reports that among the EU's considered proposals are limiting temperatures this winter in civic and commercial buildings to nineteen degrees centigrade.
I'm sure all those pictures of Germans at their desks in puffa jackets will rally even more British voters to the EU's cause.
The German Social Democrats meanwhile are once again making noises about peace with Putin. Another big plus for remainers cause in Britain, surely.
It isn't Alistair Meeks's view, it is YouGov's finding. Whether you like it or not.
I'm sure that European gas rationing will vindicate Alistair Meeks's view that opinion is swinging behind rejoining.
Die Welt reports that among the EU's considered proposals are limiting temperatures this winter in civic and commercial buildings to nineteen degrees centigrade.
I'm sure all those pictures of Germans at their desks in puffa jackets will rally even more British voters to the EU's cause.
The German Social Democrats meanwhile are once again making noises about peace with Putin. Another big plus for remainers cause in Britain, surely.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Catching covid from you because you can't be arsed to stay at home even when you know you have it is natural?
Natural is whatever one likes it to mean, like cornflakes and greenwashing oil companies.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Catching covid from you because you can't be arsed to stay at home even when you know you have it is natural?
Yes.
If I only have the sniffles then I will treat it as I always treat the sniffles.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Catching covid from you because you can't be arsed to stay at home even when you know you have it is natural?
Yes.
If I only have the sniffles then I will treat it as I always treat the sniffles.
You never will be made to admit that covid is an inherently variable disease, will you? "It's only a cold."
Away and stand in the middle of the road. I did it the other day and the driver stopped. So you will undoubtedly be all right ...
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
If polling remains at this level, something's gotta give
I am slightly hopeful of an unwind to 2016 when we didn't know what we wanted but we mainly, I think, thought that Norway EEA EFTA whatevs *was* Brexit, before that demented cow started giving it the BREXIT MEAN'S BREXIT red white n blue stuff. Question is who has the skill to arrange this without giving the game away. Answer doesn't look obvious.
Mr Meeks is right that the political classes are late to the game
Starmer, if he is canny (really not sure he is) should go on the front foot. Say "there are clearly misgivings about the kind of Brexit we have, we are not rejoining but the single market is an option, I will ask the people blah blah"
More potently, I reckon the Brexit regret will prove a temporary window,: a window which will eventually close
Brexit WILL settle down and mentally bed in, and the idea of getting closer to the EU or submitting to the ECJ in any way, will become ludicrous.
So the Remainers don't have long to move. A few years
On the contrary, the move is very much in the other direction. Politicians cannot ignore polling like this forever, or at least not if they want to win an election.
Its clear, surely, that Yougov and others have problems reaching brexit voters. On the eve of the 2016 vote the polls showed a comfortable remain victory, right? Remain then lost, and in England they lost handily.
Starmer is where he is because he knows this, as all serious politicians know it.
Okay some facts. "Three days before the vote, YouGov showed a two point lead for Leave. It was barely reported and didn’t move the markets. A subsequent eve of voting poll showed too close to call (51-49 Remain) and, unfortunately, our final on-the-day recontact study moved an additional percentage point in the wrong direction to 48/52 in favour of Remain" ".. we publish a margin of error of 3% on most polls, which we encourage media to make reference to), but overall our data showed the very close race that was eventually revealed."
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I never said don't treat oldies, but you don't need to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
In hindsight the NHS should treat people as well as it can, using triage if necessary, without a lockdown.
Treat the oldies, and everyone else, as well as you can, using triage where necessary, but don't shut society to do it.
Voluntary WfH etc is of course totally acceptable, without shutting schools or making it mandatory.
It'd be interesting to see what a doctor - say Dr Foxy - had to say about how well the NHS could have coped with that idea. It seems a little optimistic to me. And by 'optimistic', I mean stupid. We would have been talking about vast numbers of people becoming ill. I really doubt the NHS would have been able to cope.
Should teachers have been forced to work in schools and become ill? Even older ones? Why should you have been able to WfH and keep yourself safe, whilst teachers exposed themselves to danger? (In our place, the teachers who taught the few essential worker kids were chosen out of the younger staff members, and there were far fewer kids to spread the disease).
Anecdotally, I have heard from a doctor that March to May 2020 was hideous: with people dying - yes, even young people - with very little idea how to help them bar the very basics. Your situation would have placed them under even worse conditions; and they were fairly horrible then.
Though in this case, that's not perverse in terms of their intended effect.
Bloody Liz Truss boasting about sanctions earlier and criticising Europe for still buying Russian gas. Too thick to realise that we’re still buying Russian oil, just blended or refined in third countries, that are making off like bandits.
I’ll say it again until it sinks in via osmosis to our thicko policy makers. Putin is exporting more oil today than before the war started. Because your sanctions regime isn’t fit for purpose.
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
In other words, yes he's senile
Age related cognitive decline is a well established phenomenon. Everyone will experience it to some degree, and for some it will reach the threshold for dementia.
I just don't think him messing up his lines is evidence of dementia, when it's also known that dyslexics and those with speech impediments often have trouble with word order and the use of words. Don't know if you've watched Biden's White House Correspondent's Dinner, but his delivery of the jokes is terrible and you can see that he struggles with public speaking.
Brexit wrong now Brexit Right leading by a whopping 18% and the Tories are doubling down on it and heading towards an ERG puppet government led by Truss. What could possibly go wrong?
Just come out of a meeting and turned on the LBC debate. After 5 minutes I have learned Fizzy Lizzy is hell bent on starting WW3.
Tugs' says Labour have been planning on concreting over the nation to resolve the housing crisis.
Mordaunt on now. She is very tongue tied and vague. Bored now.
Badenoch on housing. She is way the most articulate save for Rishi Rich. She's very good, shame she is a rabid right wing nutcase. She's boring me now too.
Liz Truss on housing she wants more high rise, but more practical than the rest.
Rishy Rich wants brown field and urban density and modular building. He is head and shoulders more impressive in presentation than ALL the rest. Very critical of how crap Labour housing policy has been in the last decade, housing will be much better under Richy Rich.
So for fluency it has to be Richy, Kemi, Fizzy, Penny and Tom TIT. Penny very disappointing.
I do wonder if after all this the membership realise Rishi is actually half competent and might be better sticking with him.
Sunak far more impressive than the rest in the ten minutes I heard. The summary said Fizzy has promised gazillions in tax cuts and extra spending. Most expensive zoom call in history according to Times Political correspondent.
Forget those ten minutes. What about the last two years, during which which time his policies have been simultaneously low growth and inflationary, while ballooning public debt?
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
In other words, yes he's senile
Age related cognitive decline is a well established phenomenon. Everyone will experience it to some degree, and for some it will reach the threshold for dementia.
I just don't think him messing up his lines is evidence of dementia, when it's also known that dyslexics and those with speech impediments often have trouble with word order and the use of words. Don't know if you've watched Biden's White House Correspondent's Dinner, but his delivery of the jokes is terrible and you can see that he struggles with public speaking.
And dyslexia is a known major risk factor for dementia. All your points seem to be points against you.
Is that a load of older guys' second marriages, or an increasing number of gay (lesbian) marriages ?
It has always been the case (historically) that 80% of females reproduce compared to 40% of males. Although not directly related to the figure you quote it does seem to have the same kind of 2:1 distribution.
"Oof. Wrong to leave EU now 53%, a new high, right to leave 35%, a new low. Meanwhile the Tory leadership candidates compete to show their Brexit purity.
The Brexit boat is close to capsizing. The point is rapidly approaching where the consensus is that Brexit is a mistake to be mitigated. The politicians are well behind this curve."
I think he is right.
That's quite a jump in a week. The only thing that might have caused that psychological shift is Boris leaving. Anything else?
First wave back from euro hols and pissed off about passport queues?
Or outlier of course.
FPT because on topic
I suggested passport queues a couple of weeks ago, could be that plus Boris Mr Brexit Johnson doing a runner
This confirms my belief that Starmer - whatever he says now - will come under intense pressure to tack much closer to the EU if and when he makes Number 10. He will yield to this pressure
If polling remains at this level, something's gotta give
I am slightly hopeful of an unwind to 2016 when we didn't know what we wanted but we mainly, I think, thought that Norway EEA EFTA whatevs *was* Brexit, before that demented cow started giving it the BREXIT MEAN'S BREXIT red white n blue stuff. Question is who has the skill to arrange this without giving the game away. Answer doesn't look obvious.
Mr Meeks is right that the political classes are late to the game
Starmer, if he is canny (really not sure he is) should go on the front foot. Say "there are clearly misgivings about the kind of Brexit we have, we are not rejoining but the single market is an option, I will ask the people blah blah"
More potently, I reckon the Brexit regret will prove a temporary window,: a window which will eventually close
Brexit WILL settle down and mentally bed in, and the idea of getting closer to the EU or submitting to the ECJ in any way, will become ludicrous.
So the Remainers don't have long to move. A few years
On the contrary, the move is very much in the other direction. Politicians cannot ignore polling like this forever, or at least not if they want to win an election.
Its clear, surely, that Yougov and others have problems reaching brexit voters. On the eve of the 2016 vote the polls showed a comfortable remain victory, right? Remain then lost, and in England they lost handily.
Starmer is where he is because he knows this, as all serious politicians know it.
Okay some facts. "Three days before the vote, YouGov showed a two point lead for Leave. It was barely reported and didn’t move the markets. A subsequent eve of voting poll showed too close to call (51-49 Remain) and, unfortunately, our final on-the-day recontact study moved an additional percentage point in the wrong direction to 48/52 in favour of Remain" ".. we publish a margin of error of 3% on most polls, which we encourage media to make reference to), but overall our data showed the very close race that was eventually revealed."
And the latest poll is Rejoin the EU 53% Stay Out 47%, little different.
That is the relevant polling, not Brexit right or wrong as it is done now, the only alternative is rejoin the full EU, make clear to voters that likely means the Euro too and swiftly Stay Out has a majority again
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Catching covid from you because you can't be arsed to stay at home even when you know you have it is natural?
Yes.
If I only have the sniffles then I will treat it as I always treat the sniffles.
You never will be made to admit that covid is an inherently variable disease, will you? "It's only a cold."
Away and stand in the middle of the road. I did it the other day and the driver stopped. So you will undoubtedly be all right ...
No shit Sherlock its a variable disease. So treat the symptoms is my answer, rather than one size fits all.
If you have the sniffles, then blow into a tissue if you need to and live your life normally.
If you have a sore throat, then take some Strepsils* and live normally.
If you feel poorly, maybe take some Lemsip* and live normally.
If you feel rotten, have some bed rest, like you would with any other virus.
If you're really sick, seek medical treatment if needed, if its available, as you would with any other illness.
The fact its variable means the response should be varied to how it affects you.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Who said only old people matter? Who said young people do not matter? Young people got sick with Covid as well. In March 2020 we had zero idea what the long-term consequences of the disease were going to be. And as I've pointed out, there were plenty of ways in which young people could become ill and suffer under your brave new word.
Here is another one: my parents did not die. Because of that, my son has had them for a couple of years longer than might be the case. He is forming memories with them, which would not have happened if they had become ill and died. If they had died, he would have been absolutely devastated.
@margbrennan President Biden while standing in East Jerusalem: “…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”
To be fair he quite clearly misspoke ‘horror’ as ‘honour’ there and corrected himself.
Not for any moment shying away from what I see as his obvious declining faculties, but I don’t think a stumble over a word here or there is that instructive.
The “end of quote, repeat the line” stuff was much more problematic.
But he can't say "Yad Vashem" either, and it is there written down in front of him
I'm not saying this because I want the Dems to lose and Trump to win, it is far better if the Dems admit the problem now, accept Biden is past it, accept Harris is a berk, and find someone under 70 next time, maybe even - my God - under 60
Biden and Trump, if nothing else, are such an appallingly apposite symbol of America's faltering decline. I don't want to stare at this every day
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Catching covid from you because you can't be arsed to stay at home even when you know you have it is natural?
Yes.
If I only have the sniffles then I will treat it as I always treat the sniffles.
You never will be made to admit that covid is an inherently variable disease, will you? "It's only a cold."
Away and stand in the middle of the road. I did it the other day and the driver stopped. So you will undoubtedly be all right ...
No shit Sherlock its a variable disease. So treat the symptoms is my answer, rather than one size fits all.
If you have the sniffles, then blow into a tissue if you need to and live your life normally.
If you have a sore throat, then take some Strepsils* and live normally.
If you feel poorly, maybe take some Lemsip* and live normally.
If you feel rotten, have some bed rest, like you would with any other virus.
If you're really sick, seek medical treatment if needed, if its available, as you would with any other illness.
The fact its variable means the response should be varied to how it affects you.
* Other brands are available.
"The fact its variable means the response should be varied to how it affects you."
That is the crux. It doesn't just affect selfish libertarians.
We will only rejoin the EU if we get to a stage where the British people accept that they want us to re-enter as a fully fledged member without opt outs or caveats and that we are signed up to the project wholeheartedly.
We are not getting back in again unless that simple truth is accepted by all sides.
Short of seismic change in Brussels, we are not getting a cushy bespoke membership option, we are not getting single market a la carte, and we are certainly not going back in if the prevailing mood is that we’ll just cause trouble and sod off again in another 30 years.
That’s why, IMHO, rejoin is not an issue for this generation (and I’m not defining this in the way Nicola Sturgeon defines a generation).
Our politicians focus has to be to make Brexit work for the next 30-40 years. That’s why Starmer’s stance is the right one IMHO.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Who said only old people matter? Who said young people do not matter? Young people got sick with Covid as well. In March 2020 we had zero idea what the long-term consequences of the disease were going to be. And as I've pointed out, there were plenty of ways in which young people could become ill and suffer under your brave new word.
Here is another one: my parents did not die. Because of that, my son has had them for a couple of years longer than might be the case. He is forming memories with them, which would not have happened if they had become ill and died. If they had died, he would have been absolutely devastated.
Screwing schools over for two years, not one term, said that young people don't matter.
Loading £400bn of debt onto our children's shoulders said that young people don't matter.
Sweden did the right thing without having lockdown. We screwed up. I made a mistake supporting what we did, for that I apologise.
Is that a load of older guys' second marriages, or an increasing number of gay (lesbian) marriages ?
It has always been the case (historically) that 80% of females reproduce compared to 40% of males. Although not directly related to the figure you quote it does seem to have the same kind of 2:1 distribution.
Is that true? 40%?
That's a fascinating statistic. I'm not doubting it but do you have a link?
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Catching covid from you because you can't be arsed to stay at home even when you know you have it is natural?
Yes.
If I only have the sniffles then I will treat it as I always treat the sniffles.
You never will be made to admit that covid is an inherently variable disease, will you? "It's only a cold."
Away and stand in the middle of the road. I did it the other day and the driver stopped. So you will undoubtedly be all right ...
No shit Sherlock its a variable disease. So treat the symptoms is my answer, rather than one size fits all.
If you have the sniffles, then blow into a tissue if you need to and live your life normally.
If you have a sore throat, then take some Strepsils* and live normally.
If you feel poorly, maybe take some Lemsip* and live normally.
If you feel rotten, have some bed rest, like you would with any other virus.
If you're really sick, seek medical treatment if needed, if its available, as you would with any other illness.
The fact its variable means the response should be varied to how it affects you.
* Other brands are available.
"The fact its variable means the response should be varied to how it affects you."
That is the crux. It doesn't just affect selfish libertarians.
So what?
Everyone can choose their own response, based upon how they're affected, or their own priorities.
Other people getting a natural airborne virus that 5% of the population have today is just nature.
Regarding price elasticity of petrol are there any recent figures for usage? Anecdotally, I've noticed no fall during peak times. But the dual carriageway has seemed noticeably quieter off peak. Or maybe I didn't pay attention before?
There are experimental government statistics on road fuel sales. It's pretty hard to interpret the figures because of the effect of lockdown on prior years. Sales are down compared to average for year to date, but could that be a seasonal effect in part? And prices have been high for most of year to date anyway.
Is that a load of older guys' second marriages, or an increasing number of gay (lesbian) marriages ?
It has always been the case (historically) that 80% of females reproduce compared to 40% of males. Although not directly related to the figure you quote it does seem to have the same kind of 2:1 distribution.
Evidence? Certainly in the 19th and 20th century the vast majority of western males would have married and reproduced
Regarding price elasticity of petrol are there any recent figures for usage? Anecdotally, I've noticed no fall during peak times. But the dual carriageway has seemed noticeably quieter off peak. Or maybe I didn't pay attention before?
My usage for one remains remarkably constant whatever the price.
Exactly. The amount of discretionary petrol usage is tiny. The PED of 1.1 - the more notable change in behaviour is as likely to be people driving more slowly on the motorways, as opposed to not making journeys because of the petrol price.
The mileage driven is remarkably price insensitive (although I’m sure there’s a price where that really starts to kick in!) but cutting your speed on the motorway makes a big difference to the amount of fuel used / mile, so fuel consumption is clearly much more price sensitive.
IIRC the difference between 65mph and 80mph is > 20% increase in fuel consumption. Plus you save on tyre wear by driving slower...
Though in this case, that's not perverse in terms of their intended effect.
Bloody Liz Truss boasting about sanctions earlier and criticising Europe for still buying Russian gas. Too thick to realise that we’re still buying Russian oil, just blended or refined in third countries, that are making off like bandits.
I’ll say it again until it sinks in via osmosis to our thicko policy makers. Putin is exporting more oil today than before the war started. Because your sanctions regime isn’t fit for purpose.
Two elements to that.
First, as far as gas is concerned, Russia will find it hard to sell the gas its supplying to Europe elsewhere, as it lacks the capacity to deliver it.
Second, sanctions have had some success in reducing get price Russia gets for its oil, as this story makes quite clear. Saudi oil is pretty cheap to produce; if it's paying them to buy Russian oil rather than use their own, then that will be a very low price. Russia does have the capacity to deliver oil more or less where it chooses. Unless there's sufficient supply outside of Russia to replace its production, then the will continue to be able to see it.
But what does 'single' mean in this context? Having a partner? Living with that partner?
I would have classed myself as 'single' until I reached 27, when a girlfriend moved in with me. I had girlfriends, but we did not share our lives too much. We would meet up, have meals, go to the cinema, sleep over occasionally, have fun, etc, but we were independent of each other. This does not mean I did not cheat on them; just that we had our own independent lives and homes.
Is that a load of older guys' second marriages, or an increasing number of gay (lesbian) marriages ?
It has always been the case (historically) that 80% of females reproduce compared to 40% of males. Although not directly related to the figure you quote it does seem to have the same kind of 2:1 distribution.
It kinda ties in with what I know of my old school colleagues although the bit about being single(different if related stat) may be explained a bit by males and females differing slightly on the definition of "single"
FPT: Flatlander said: "I suspect (no calculations) that using solar roof tiles to power a reversible heat pump would be more effective.
These are actually a thing now although they aren't cheap."
That is, more effective than my suggestion of changing the color of color of roofs, making them more reflective in the summer, more absorbent in the winter.
There were two qualifications in my original comment: for some buildings, in some climates. Let's say, for example, that you have a building that you plan to use for just five more years. It might make economic sense to repaint the roof twice a year, using very inexpensive paints (since they don't have to last long.
(It is good to hear that the combination you describe is actually being installed in some places. And I can imagine it being a good choice -- for some buildings, in some climates. If not now, in the future.)
The dual hurdles make it nearly impossible for Biden to follow through on selling the fighters to the NATO ally as lawmakers express exasperation over Ankara’s purchase of advanced Russian equipment, violating the territory of its neighbours and its drift toward autocracy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan...
This is not going to make Erdogan happy, after he was persuaded to back down on NATO membership for Sweden and Finland.
Some of that 'advanced Russian equipment' are S-400 SAM systems. The same system that (allegedly) the Russians are pi**ed off about because it cannot shoot down HIMARS shells.
Erdogan might have bought a pup...
The S-400 is failing badly against the HIMARS. Which is hillarious, because each S400 defence rocket is an order of magnitide more expensive than the rockets the enemy is facing. They’ll be out of them soon enough, chasing rainbows.
Sadly, the Russians appear to be using Surface-to-Air missiles in a Surface-to-Ground role. They are designed for this, but are apparently highly inaccurate.
At this stage it seems the Russians are not even trying to pretend they are going after military targets. They just want to destroy Ukraine.
It's hard for the media to cover the military conflict, but easier for the media to cover damage to Ukrainian civilian infrastructure behind the front lines. They want to create the sense that Ukraine is losing so that the US public will decide they don't want to waste sending more support.
To be fair he quite clearly misspoke ‘horror’ as ‘honour’ there and corrected himself.
Not for any moment shying away from what I see as his obvious declining faculties, but I don’t think a stumble over a word here or there is that instructive.
The “end of quote, repeat the line” stuff was much more problematic.
But he can't say "Yad Vashem" either, and it is there written down in front of him
I'm not saying this because I want the Dems to lose and Trump to win, it is far better if the Dems admit the problem now, accept Biden is past it, accept Harris is a berk, and find someone under 70 next time, maybe even - my God - under 60
Biden and Trump, if nothing else, are such an appallingly apposite symbol of America's faltering decline. I don't want to stare at this every day
Oh, I’m in complete agreement there.
Best case scenario is the Democrats ditch Biden and move to a new generation (with who though? Their current cupboard looks barer than the Tory Party’s and that’s definitely saying something) and the GOP drop their Trump obsession and move on to different candidates.
At least that way we avoid the chaos of a Biden-Harris succession or a second Trump disaster.
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Who said only old people matter? Who said young people do not matter? Young people got sick with Covid as well. In March 2020 we had zero idea what the long-term consequences of the disease were going to be. And as I've pointed out, there were plenty of ways in which young people could become ill and suffer under your brave new word.
Here is another one: my parents did not die. Because of that, my son has had them for a couple of years longer than might be the case. He is forming memories with them, which would not have happened if they had become ill and died. If they had died, he would have been absolutely devastated.
Screwing schools over for two years, not one term, said that young people don't matter.
Loading £400bn of debt onto our children's shoulders said that young people don't matter.
Sweden did the right thing without having lockdown. We screwed up. I made a mistake supporting what we did, for that I apologise.
You evidently have not read what I wrote. In particular, look at the but beyond 'caveat'.
In March 2020 we knew bu**er all about this little sod. We were guessing. You can argue we erred too much on the side of caution, but it could easily have been the other way around. And I'd argue that even with hindsight, that first lockdown was the right thing - although it would have been nice to change details.
St Andrews has had its day. The Old Course is simply not fit for purpose for the modern players.
more like for modern equipment ! but yes get your point. That said it does not really matter if somebody wins with 20 under par or 5 over par they still get the best score in the field and golf courses are supposed to be varied
With my hindsight vision enabled, personally I would have basically done very little to halt COVID in the UK. I have now come to realise that the old people for whom we burned through £400bn to save the lives are bunch of ungrateful bastards and will continue to screw every last penny out of working age people until they die. If a few hundred thousand extra had snuffed it then it would have solved the care crisis, the NHS crisis, pensions overhang and freed up hundreds of thousands of homes for working age people, and we wouldn't have spent £400bn to keep them alive. My generation and my daughter's generation wouldn't be facing decades of high taxes for it and we'd have a lot of fiscal headroom.
If they weren't so ungrateful I'd maybe feel differently about it, but all I see is the old wankers we ruined two years of our lives for, spend £400bn on saving rinse generations below them for all we're worth so they can live forever with their hands in our pockets.
If your life was 'ruined' by the Covid rules for two years, then I'd argue it might be a problem with your 'life'. The Covid restrictions were sh*t, but there was still lots to do. True, it might not be quite what you would ordinarily do, but there was still stuff to do. Heck, I had a five/six-year old to homeschool, and I don't appear to have found it as a challenging as you.
And if it saved a few hundred thousand people (not just oldies either), then fair enough. Especially for the first lockdown, where we were unsure what the heck we were facing. Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and get on with things.
I really don't understand how you can say your life was 'ruined'. And before you say, I like going out. I like doing things. I like visiting places. But when I could not do these, I adapted. I even found some new things I enjoyed.
I'm actually quite an insular person. My favourite hobbies are things like knitting and walking, which weren't affected by lockdown. I expected to sail through it. There were a few jokes along the lines of, "this is what we've been training for."
But it really was monumentally awful. I find it so much harder to leave the house at all now. And I was lucky in where I spent my lockdowns and with whom. I don't think it does to underestimate the sacrifice made.
And then there really should be a quid pro quo for such sacrifices, given the age profile of who the disease killed. But Max is right. Not only did the young give up their freedom to save the old, they're now being expected to pay for the privilege.
I don't go as far as Max and day that I'd kill all the old if I had my time in the pandemic over again. But I can't disagree that the old are talking the piss.
I'm sorry you went through that, but my argument is with use of the word 'ruined'. The people whose lives were ruined were those who died, or who lost loved ones. Max, you and I still have our lives.
As an aside, we were blooming lucky during this pandemic in one regard: it did not affect the young as much. Imagine how much more hideous it would have been if the ambulances had been filled with people under 18, rather than those over 50.
Utter bollocks.
Deaths are natural, especially deaths of the sick, infirm and old which is who Covid targetted.
There are fates worse than death. There are actions worse than death.
Covid restrictions like closing schools harmed the education of children, many of them will never get the opportunity to get that back.
I'm lucky my children were young. Lockdown measures greatly restricted their education, but they've got a chance to catch that up. I've been working hard with my girls, as have their school, to catch up on the disruption but many don't have that opportunity. Disrupted education could be affecting people's lives for the rest of their life, for decades to come. Some people will live with that for the next seventy or eighty years.
That is far worse than someone in their 80s or 90s reaching the end of their natural life, from natural causes, which is what Covid is.
If we'd allowed Covid to take its course and put £400bn into education etc instead of keeping the extremely old and vulnerable alive a little bit longer while closing schools, then the country would be far better off for it. Harsh but true.
I would argue that your position lacks compassion, humanity and even common sense.
You are utterly wrong on this, but I doubt I will convince you, or you will convince me.
I would argue that I have more compassion for children and their future than I do for those in their 80s and 90s who have lived their lives to the full anyway already.
I think that is the common sense and humane position too.
Fucking over children in order to help those who have already lived their lives, is not common sense, and it is not humane.
As I said, lacking compassion, humanity and common sense.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
I've read his comments and I don't agree that they're lacking in compassion, humanity and common sense.
Fair enough. I guess you're not old, or don't expect to get old?
Why do only old people matter?
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
Who said only old people matter? Who said young people do not matter? Young people got sick with Covid as well. In March 2020 we had zero idea what the long-term consequences of the disease were going to be. And as I've pointed out, there were plenty of ways in which young people could become ill and suffer under your brave new word.
Here is another one: my parents did not die. Because of that, my son has had them for a couple of years longer than might be the case. He is forming memories with them, which would not have happened if they had become ill and died. If they had died, he would have been absolutely devastated.
Screwing schools over for two years, not one term, said that young people don't matter.
Loading £400bn of debt onto our children's shoulders said that young people don't matter.
Sweden did the right thing without having lockdown. We screwed up. I made a mistake supporting what we did, for that I apologise.
You evidently have not read what I wrote. In particular, look at the but beyond 'caveat'.
In March 2020 we knew bu**er all about this little sod. We were guessing. You can argue we erred too much on the side of caution, but it could easily have been the other way around. And I'd argue that even with hindsight, that first lockdown was the right thing - although it would have been nice to change details.
Indeed which is why in March 2020 I supported lockdown.
In hindsight that was a mistake. I did not realise it was a mistake at the time, but in hindsight, it was the wrong thing to do.
I don't think this is evidence of senility. Biden has always struggled with word order, and especially closely related words. I know someone with dyslexia who makes similar mistakes. It's clear that Biden intended to say something along the lines keeping alive the truth and honouring the victims of the Holocaust. I think Biden's problems here are more to do with a speech rather than dementia. Plus, the man is 80, and even the sharpest 80 year olds are prone to a bit of brain fog.
In other words, yes he's senile
Age related cognitive decline is a well established phenomenon. Everyone will experience it to some degree, and for some it will reach the threshold for dementia.
I just don't think him messing up his lines is evidence of dementia, when it's also known that dyslexics and those with speech impediments often have trouble with word order and the use of words. Don't know if you've watched Biden's White House Correspondent's Dinner, but his delivery of the jokes is terrible and you can see that he struggles with public speaking.
And dyslexia is a known major risk factor for dementia. All your points seem to be points against you.
I wasn't aware of this link, that's very interesting, thank you. Though a quick Google (I know, I know) suggests that the relationship between the two is not as simple as dyslexia --> dementia. That elderly people who have had speech problems in the past perform worse in assessments is not to be unexpected and therefore are likely to be an overrepresented group, without underlying pathology. This is seen with Schizophrenia patients all the time. They have the diagnosis but their pathology doesn't really fit. I'm certain there are dementia patients with the same.
At the end of the day, I think Biden's problems can be explained by his previous speech problems and age related decline without recourse to Alzheimer's or some other progressive dementia. In my opinion he's certainly too old for the modern presidency, but I don't think he's wandering through the west wing at night unable to remember where he is.
St Andrews has had its day. The Old Course is simply not fit for purpose for the modern players.
more like for modern equipment ! but yes get your point. That said it does not really matter if somebody wins with 20 under par or 5 over par they still get the best score in the field and golf courses are supposed to be varied
The issue is a Major is supposed to be the ultimate test of golf. It isn't just how many under the winner is, it is wayward and poor shots aren't now punished.
e.g. St Andrews back in the day, you would have to hit accurate shots of the tee to miss the fairway bunkers. Those who were slightly wayward end in the bunker, then struggling for par.
Now they just smash it way over all the trouble.
If we compare this to say challenge at Augusta, every shot danger lies, a mishit shot can quickly end in disaster...even hitting the green can result in an impossibly tricky putt. Overall the margin for error each and every shot is very very small. Thus it is a challenge to see over the 72 holes who is consistently the best golfer.
Comments
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1543321577181380609?s=20&t=BImwVdlI2b7IAEaSUky1Pg
Anecdotally, I've noticed no fall during peak times.
But the dual carriageway has seemed noticeably quieter off peak.
Or maybe I didn't pay attention before?
The differing psychological impact of lockdowns is not something that should be underestimated.
Mr. B, Biden should be forgiven. He's clearly senile.
Ms. Livermore, huzzah! Who else among PBers has now become a verb as well as a noun?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/president-joe-biden-mocked-anchorman-27438808
An unscrupulous, unprincipled chancer who will do anything, say anything and screw over anyone to get himself into the top.
That may win an election for Labour. I leave it to you to determine if that's a good thing or not.
The bad news is the other main Dem candidates would lose by even more.
I need to caveat this a little. My own view is that the March 2020 lockdown was utterly necessary. We knew very little about how this little bu**er acted, how we could protect ourselves, and what its long-term consequences were.
The lockdowns up to and including January 2021 were also probably justified. We knew more about the virus, but not enough vaccine doses had been given to justify relaxing them. We can argue about them. And Starmer was utterly wrong for wanting more restrictions late last year. But IMV the March 2020 one was utterly unavoidable.
Now, why do I think your position lacks common sense? Because even before the lockdown on March 23rd 2020, people were locking themselves down. Many companies had already started WfH. Without 'official' lockdowns, and more would have rapidly happened. And it would have been utterly disorganised and potentially much more harmful to the economy.
Worse, kids would have been affected. We all would have been affected. If the hospitals were swamped with Covid patients (not just the oldies you hate) and you - or your children - got ill, then you may not get the help you need. The health service would have broken down. You would be gambling that no-one you loved would get ill.
The only 'solution' to this would have been quite evil: to reduce the strain on the NHS by not treating oldies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gcQrFsUFzQ
I feel sorry for him. Even the NYT now openly discusses his advanced years and obvious decline
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/09/us/politics/biden-age-democrats.html
At this stage it seems the Russians are not even trying to pretend they are going after military targets. They just want to destroy Ukraine.
"It’s becoming very disturbing to listen to #JoeBiden embarrassing himself and America. This time in #Israel
“To keep alive the truth and Honour of the holocaust”"
He actually says that. My quietly senile mother makes more sense than this, and makes fewer painful errors
https://twitter.com/WhistleIRL/status/1547521321466318849?s=20&t=PxtsL7_L_00HeQWDpeFXrw
@ChrisWillx
“According to Pew Research, 51% of men between the ages of 18 and 29 are single compared to 32% of women in the same age group.”
https://twitter.com/ChrisWillx/status/1547928971718828033
Mind, I'm at least two decades older, and I'm infuriated by the Conservatives' taxation policy in favour of wealthy pensioners!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband
And how long were schools closed? A term?
Would ruin the fecking place of course.
No watering the garden either this w/e - was drizzling most of the morning, with some sessions of definite pissing down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
15% of Leave voters think it was the wrong decision.
Sure, 15% is a reasonable amount, but the vast majority of those who "won" the vote are still on board, so trying to reopen the issue remains hugely decisive.
Not sure it's a road that Labour want to go down, when they could probably reduce a huge amount of the impact of Brexit without reopening the yes/no debate.
Die Welt reports that among the EU's considered proposals are limiting temperatures this winter in civic and commercial buildings to nineteen degrees centigrade.
I'm sure all those pictures of Germans at their desks in puffa jackets will rally even more British voters to the EU's cause.
The German Social Democrats meanwhile are once again making noises about peace with Putin. Another big plus for remainers cause in Britain, surely.
Not for any moment shying away from what I see as his obvious declining faculties, but I don’t think a stumble over a word here or there is that instructive.
The “end of quote, repeat the line” stuff was much more problematic.
In hindsight the NHS should treat people as well as it can, using triage if necessary, without a lockdown.
Treat the oldies, and everyone else, as well as you can, using triage where necessary, but don't shut society to do it.
Voluntary WfH etc is of course totally acceptable, without shutting schools or making it mandatory.
Why don't young people matter?
I would jump in front of a bus to save my children. Instead we threw our children under the bus to "save" those at the end of their life, from natural deaths.
The horror.
Natural is whatever one likes it to mean, like cornflakes and greenwashing oil companies.
If I only have the sniffles then I will treat it as I always treat the sniffles.
Away and stand in the middle of the road. I did it the other day and the driver stopped. So you will undoubtedly be all right ...
"Three days before the vote, YouGov showed a two point lead for Leave. It was barely reported and didn’t move the markets. A subsequent eve of voting poll showed too close to call (51-49 Remain) and, unfortunately, our final on-the-day recontact study moved an additional percentage point in the wrong direction to 48/52 in favour of Remain"
".. we publish a margin of error of 3% on most polls, which we encourage media to make reference to), but overall our data showed the very close race that was eventually revealed."
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/28/online-polls-were-right
Should teachers have been forced to work in schools and become ill? Even older ones? Why should you have been able to WfH and keep yourself safe, whilst teachers exposed themselves to danger? (In our place, the teachers who taught the few essential worker kids were chosen out of the younger staff members, and there were far fewer kids to spread the disease).
Anecdotally, I have heard from a doctor that March to May 2020 was hideous: with people dying - yes, even young people - with very little idea how to help them bar the very basics. Your situation would have placed them under even worse conditions; and they were fairly horrible then.
It's a cul de sac. When there are 8-lane highways of relevance to be considered by our politicians.
I’ll say it again until it sinks in via osmosis to our thicko policy makers. Putin is exporting more oil today than before the war started. Because your sanctions regime isn’t fit for purpose.
I just don't think him messing up his lines is evidence of dementia, when it's also known that dyslexics and those with speech impediments often have trouble with word order and the use of words. Don't know if you've watched Biden's White House Correspondent's Dinner, but his delivery of the jokes is terrible and you can see that he struggles with public speaking.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/back-anyone-but-sunak-prime-minister-begs-defeated-rivals-c7dnv8k3v
Also, yes - only up to 12 weeks. Which is a compromise solution, that reflects the deeply-held views of many Irish Catholics on this issue.
Penny & Kemi being nibbled.
2.08 Penny Mordaunt 48%
3.75 Liz Truss 27%
4.7 Rishi Sunak 21%
26 Kemi Badenoch
120 Tom Tugendhat
180 Dominic Raab
That is the relevant polling, not Brexit right or wrong as it is done now, the only alternative is rejoin the full EU, make clear to voters that likely means the Euro too and swiftly Stay Out has a majority again
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1543321577181380609?s=20&t=BImwVdlI2b7IAEaSUky1Pg
If you have the sniffles, then blow into a tissue if you need to and live your life normally.
If you have a sore throat, then take some Strepsils* and live normally.
If you feel poorly, maybe take some Lemsip* and live normally.
If you feel rotten, have some bed rest, like you would with any other virus.
If you're really sick, seek medical treatment if needed, if its available, as you would with any other illness.
The fact its variable means the response should be varied to how it affects you.
* Other brands are available.
Here is another one: my parents did not die. Because of that, my son has had them for a couple of years longer than might be the case. He is forming memories with them, which would not have happened if they had become ill and died. If they had died, he would have been absolutely devastated.
I'm not saying this because I want the Dems to lose and Trump to win, it is far better if the Dems admit the problem now, accept Biden is past it, accept Harris is a berk, and find someone under 70 next time, maybe even - my God - under 60
Biden and Trump, if nothing else, are such an appallingly apposite symbol of America's faltering decline. I don't want to stare at this every day
That is the crux. It doesn't just affect selfish libertarians.
We are not getting back in again unless that simple truth is accepted by all sides.
Short of seismic change in Brussels, we are not getting a cushy bespoke membership option, we are not getting single market a la carte, and we are certainly not going back in if the prevailing mood is that we’ll just cause trouble and sod off again in another 30 years.
That’s why, IMHO, rejoin is not an issue for this generation (and I’m not defining this in the way Nicola Sturgeon defines a generation).
Our politicians focus has to be to make Brexit work for the next 30-40 years. That’s why Starmer’s stance is the right one IMHO.
Loading £400bn of debt onto our children's shoulders said that young people don't matter.
Sweden did the right thing without having lockdown. We screwed up. I made a mistake supporting what we did, for that I apologise.
That's a fascinating statistic. I'm not doubting it but do you have a link?
Everyone can choose their own response, based upon how they're affected, or their own priorities.
Other people getting a natural airborne virus that 5% of the population have today is just nature.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/average-road-fuel-sales-and-stock-levels
IIRC the difference between 65mph and 80mph is > 20% increase in fuel consumption. Plus you save on tyre wear by driving slower...
First, as far as gas is concerned, Russia will find it hard to sell the gas its supplying to Europe elsewhere, as it lacks the capacity to deliver it.
Second, sanctions have had some success in reducing get price Russia gets for its oil, as this story makes quite clear. Saudi oil is pretty cheap to produce; if it's paying them to buy Russian oil rather than use their own, then that will be a very low price.
Russia does have the capacity to deliver oil more or less where it chooses. Unless there's sufficient supply outside of Russia to replace its production, then the will continue to be able to see it.
Having said that, it does seem a large disparity.
But what does 'single' mean in this context? Having a partner? Living with that partner?
I would have classed myself as 'single' until I reached 27, when a girlfriend moved in with me. I had girlfriends, but we did not share our lives too much. We would meet up, have meals, go to the cinema, sleep over occasionally, have fun, etc, but we were independent of each other. This does not mean I did not cheat on them; just that we had our own independent lives and homes.
These are actually a thing now although they aren't cheap."
That is, more effective than my suggestion of changing the color of color of roofs, making them more reflective in the summer, more absorbent in the winter.
There were two qualifications in my original comment: for some buildings, in some climates. Let's say, for example, that you have a building that you plan to use for just five more years. It might make economic sense to repaint the roof twice a year, using very inexpensive paints (since they don't have to last long.
(It is good to hear that the combination you describe is actually being installed in some places. And I can imagine it being a good choice -- for some buildings, in some climates. If not now, in the future.)
Best case scenario is the Democrats ditch Biden and move to a new generation (with who though? Their current cupboard looks barer than the Tory Party’s and that’s definitely saying something) and the GOP drop their Trump obsession and move on to different candidates.
At least that way we avoid the chaos of a Biden-Harris succession or a second Trump disaster.
In March 2020 we knew bu**er all about this little sod. We were guessing. You can argue we erred too much on the side of caution, but it could easily have been the other way around. And I'd argue that even with hindsight, that first lockdown was the right thing - although it would have been nice to change details.
In hindsight that was a mistake. I did not realise it was a mistake at the time, but in hindsight, it was the wrong thing to do.
At the end of the day, I think Biden's problems can be explained by his previous speech problems and age related decline without recourse to Alzheimer's or some other progressive dementia. In my opinion he's certainly too old for the modern presidency, but I don't think he's wandering through the west wing at night unable to remember where he is.
e.g. St Andrews back in the day, you would have to hit accurate shots of the tee to miss the fairway bunkers. Those who were slightly wayward end in the bunker, then struggling for par.
Now they just smash it way over all the trouble.
If we compare this to say challenge at Augusta, every shot danger lies, a mishit shot can quickly end in disaster...even hitting the green can result in an impossibly tricky putt. Overall the margin for error each and every shot is very very small. Thus it is a challenge to see over the 72 holes who is consistently the best golfer.