"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
In hindsight, was the Conservative membership vote for Boris Johnson right or wrong?
Probably massively 'wrong' would be the response at present. But an interesting one if people actually think about it. Where would we be at now with a Hunt premiership? Would we be in a better or worse Brexit position? How would Covid have been handled? Would there still have been a big Conservative majority in 2019?
I'm not a Hunt fan, but still... Overall, though, I blame the MPs for the choice they provided, more than the membersfor their choice, which was possible somewhat rational given their interests, if not the country's.
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.
But you cannot go back in time and apply the knowledge we have now. The lockdown was the correct thing to do because we did not know. The fact you think the evidence now shows it was wrong (I disagree strongly on that) does not mean it was the wrong decision at the time. Because we did not know.
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.
So (one of) the question(s) is, how would your girlfriends prior to that point at age 27 have classified themselves?
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.
Indeed, I think that too much is read into this by some people. I don't think the statistic is actually as interesting as it first appears.
Using your definition of single as "not living with a partner" I was single for most of the time I was 18-29, but my wife was not. We have AFAIK both only lived with each other, but I'm 2 years older than her, so she had more of her twenties as "not single" than I did.
Its not that unusual for couples to have the man a couple of years older than the woman, I'm not sure why that is, but its often the way. So you'd expect looking at the same age group to have more women in a relationship than men.
On average men are 2.3 years older than women they're in a relationship with.
That doesn't mean that the men won't end up in a relationship, it just means they entered one on average two years later than women did on average, so spent more of their twenties single.
"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
Don't be silly, of course 'Rejoin' is not the only option. There are any number of options up to that point. One could start by standing by our treaty obligations re: NI.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
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 actual *thing* at the bottom of all this political back and forth is this - the Americans (and several allies) are really not keen on having an Airforce with F-35s, while the Army tries to get its Russian S-X00 missiles to track them. With the usual inter service rivalry etc, this would form a testing environment for improving the Russian SAMs.
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.
There is the potential that men and women are treating the question differently. But I think it has historically been the norm for more females to reproduce than males in the human species, as for a lot of other mammals.
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.
Sweden did not do the right thing at all. In comparison to its similar neighbours - Finland and Norway - it had a disastrously bad pandemic. If we had followed the Swedish example it would have been catastrophic.
In hindsight, was the Conservative membership vote for Boris Johnson right or wrong?
Probably massively 'wrong' would be the response at present. But an interesting one if people actually think about it. Where would we be at now with a Hunt premiership? Would we be in a better or worse Brexit position? How would Covid have been handled? Would there still have been a big Conservative majority in 2019?
I'm not a Hunt fan, but still... Overall, though, I blame the MPs for the choice they provided, more than the membersfor their choice, which was possible somewhat rational given their interests, if not the country's.
I voted for Hunt, for reasons that are obvious in the light of the last few weeks (and months) - but even now, I'm not sure it was the right call. The best way forward was always Johnson to win the election and resolve Brexit, and then for him to step aside and allow someone else to govern (with Johnson possibly coming back to take a more major role in the runup to the next election). However, this was never a realistic hope.
I don't really blame those who picked the short term fix - it made sense, and god knows where we'd be if Hunt had been in charge of delivering Brexit. I disagree that it was the Conservative MP's fault specifically though - the real villains were those pro-Remain MPs of the 2017 Parliament who thought they were being oh-so-clever in trying to stop us leaving.
I have never voted for Joe Biden, but I have watched him casually for decades. And he doesn't seem much different now than he did twenty or thirty years ago. He has always been gaffe-prone, and always had trouble with verbal flubs. (One reason for that is said to be an effect of his overcoming stuttering when he was young.)
That said, he is even now a more competent president than Barack Obama was, a low bar, I'll admit.
The problem the Democratic Party has is similar to that the Labour Party had, the support Bernie Sanders has among so many activists. That makes it difficult to nominate a competent, moderate centrist, who might actually have practical solutions to the nation's problems, for example, fentanyl.
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.
So (one of) the question(s) is, how would your girlfriends prior to that point at age 27 have classified themselves?
That's a good question. I might ask a couple of them next time we chat; it'd be interesting to know. I can imagine one will hit me over the phone with a pillow for even asking...
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.
Strangely, the US has an S-400 or 2. And equally strangely, various weapons systems are tested against it. Not just RCS (Radar Cross Section) - though that helps - flight path and other factors.
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.
And why would the media want to do that? You are right about it being easier to film damage in Ukraine, though.
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
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.
Sweden did not do the right thing at all. In comparison to its similar neighbours - Finland and Norway - it had a disastrously bad pandemic. If we had followed the Swedish example it would have been catastrophic.
The notion Sweden had a bad pandemic depends upon what you choose to measure.
Based on what I choose to measure, Sweden had a far better pandemic than its neighbours.
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
I think they should rebrand. The Cameroon tree is old hat now.
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
The problem with public toilets is that councils can't afford to keep them open, not that you might encounter someone with suspiciously large hands in the Ladies.
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
Is it true (per BBC) that Rishi came out with “I work too hard”?
Doesn’t he know that is the ONLY wrong answer to that question?
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.
And why would the media want to do that? You are right about it being easier to film damage in Ukraine, though.
I haven't seen any references to using SAMs (Surface-to-Air missiles) against ground targets. Linkey?
I have seen quite a few reports of using naval Surface to Surface missiles against Ukrainian ground targets, though. The Russians have quite a lot of big anti-ship missiles, and they are fairly inaccurate against ground targets.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
The problem with public toilets is that councils can't afford to keep them open, not that you might encounter someone with suspiciously large hands in the Ladies.
If Johnson was running he'd have promised 40 new world-beating super loos.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
Ahem, as I suggested last night, Brexit is past its apogee. Only further disappointment and decay awaits.
Indeed, it is starting to sound odd to hear politicians - like Mordaunt in her Beth Rigby interview - claim to be “passionate” about Brexit. The words now have a decidedly musty flavour, their virility has dissipated.
For the benefit of thickos, this does not mean Britain is rejoining the EU, merely that the period of pretending it amounts to a strategic vision is rapidly approaching its twilight.
I have never voted for Joe Biden, but I have watched him casually for decades. And he doesn't seem much different now than he did twenty or thirty years ago. He has always been gaffe-prone, and always had trouble with verbal flubs. (One reason for that is said to be an effect of his overcoming stuttering when he was young.)
That said, he is even now a more competent president than Barack Obama was, a low bar, I'll admit.
The problem the Democratic Party has is similar to that the Labour Party had, the support Bernie Sanders has among so many activists. That makes it difficult to nominate a competent, moderate centrist, who might actually have practical solutions to the nation's problems, for example, fentanyl.
The other problem the Democratic Party has is Manchin.
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
I think they should rebrand. The Cameroon tree is old hat now.
The Conservatoilets has quite a ring to it.
The Conservatoilets: you can't flush us away.
The Conservatoilets: you want to take a piss? We want to take the piss.
The Conservatoilets: Brexit has sent us round the U bend...
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
Is it true (per BBC) that Rishi came out with “I work too hard”?
Doesn’t he know that is the ONLY wrong answer to that question?
It’s a stupid question for an interview that I never ask (and rarely get asked). “I overengineer solutions” is my go to but… ugh.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
I always think those kind of interview questions for jobs are absolutely stupid. Nobody is genuinely going to tell you what they are s##t at, the point of the interview is to find out what skills they have and which they don't (and if that is ok for you as a employer / do you need to send them to upskill).
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
I've always said my modesty is my greatest weakness, it has held me back over the years.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
The problem with public toilets is that councils can't afford to keep them open, not that you might encounter someone with suspiciously large hands in the Ladies.
Ah, OK, they've not been trying to address the lack of loos, they've been bleating on about transgenderism yet again, have they?
In that case I take it back. They have indeed gone mad.
I have never voted for Joe Biden, but I have watched him casually for decades. And he doesn't seem much different now than he did twenty or thirty years ago. He has always been gaffe-prone, and always had trouble with verbal flubs. (One reason for that is said to be an effect of his overcoming stuttering when he was young.)
That said, he is even now a more competent president than Barack Obama was, a low bar, I'll admit.
The problem the Democratic Party has is similar to that the Labour Party had, the support Bernie Sanders has among so many activists. That makes it difficult to nominate a competent, moderate centrist, who might actually have practical solutions to the nation's problems, for example, fentanyl.
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
I've always said my modesty is my greatest weakness, it has held me back over the years.
Ahem, as I suggested last night, Brexit is past its apogee. Only further disappointment and decay awaits.
Indeed, it is starting to sound odd to hear politicians - like Mordaunt in her Beth Rigby interview - claim to be “passionate” about Brexit. The words now have a decidedly musty flavour, their virility has dissipated.
For the benefit of thickos, this does not mean Britain is rejoining the EU, merely that the period of pretending it amounts to a strategic vision is rapidly approaching its twilight.
Does it not cut both ways?
The period when stopping Brexit was a substitute for a strategic vision has passed. Whatever future we choose will not be based on hankering for 2016.
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
Is it true (per BBC) that Rishi came out with “I work too hard”?
Doesn’t he know that is the ONLY wrong answer to that question?
its a question everyone from job applicants to politicians lie about (not sure why people ask it anymore) - For instance if your biggest weakness (as say an accountant) is being chit at excel , dont say you are chit at excel whatever you do -
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
Is it true (per BBC) that Rishi came out with “I work too hard”?
Doesn’t he know that is the ONLY wrong answer to that question?
its a question everyone from job applicants to politicians lie about (not sure why people ask it anymore) - For instance if your biggest weakness (as say an accountant) is being chit at excel , dont say you are chit at excel whatever you do -
"I'm bone idle unless there's a pressing deadline"
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.
And why would the media want to do that? You are right about it being easier to film damage in Ukraine, though.
I haven't seen any references to using SAMs (Surface-to-Air missiles) against ground targets. Linkey?
I have seen quite a few reports of using naval Surface to Surface missiles against Ukrainian ground targets, though. The Russians have quite a lot of big anti-ship missiles, and they are fairly inaccurate against ground targets.
Seaslug surface to air (now all out of service, I think, at least in the Royal Navy) had a secondary land strike role. USN Talos, too.
Pro tip, to avoid awkwardness, don't call them by their first names, always call them darling or sweetheart.
Otherwise you end up calling the wrong name and boy does that lead a whole world of trouble.
yes and in the same vein try and not date women with similar names (the same name is ideal though!) - Dating a Lisa , Lucy and Lea is asking for trouble
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
I always think those kind of interview questions for jobs are absolutely stupid. Nobody is genuinely going to tell you what they are s##t at, the point of the interview is to find out what skills they have and which they don't (and if that is ok for you as a employer / do you need to send them to upskill).
I find them disingenuous questions because the purpose of them isn’t to find out the answer but to test your reaction to it.
Same as the “what brand of biscuit / cartoon character / small African nation with a population below 20m” are you? type questions.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
Are all the candidates for leader of the Conservative party certifiably insane?
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Which chunk of the population struggles most with continence?
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
The problem with public toilets is that councils can't afford to keep them open, not that you might encounter someone with suspiciously large hands in the Ladies.
If Johnson was running he'd have promised 40 new world-beating super loos.
I often used to think that local councils had missed a trick here. Give restaurants and cafes a discount on their business rates in return for allowing non-customers to use their loos. Saves on the poll tax and the old loos are repurposed or knocked down.
I think those are the most cringe answers to “what is your greatest weakness”. “I’m a perfectionist”, “I’m too enthusiastic”, “my sense of humour is dodgy”, “my cats”, “I was in the army dontcha know”. At least Badenoch had a half decent punt at it.
I always think those kind of interview questions for jobs are absolutely stupid. Nobody is genuinely going to tell you what they are s##t at, the point of the interview is to find out what skills they have and which they don't (and if that is ok for you as a employer / do you need to send them to upskill).
I find them disingenuous questions because the purpose of them isn’t to find out the answer but to test your reaction to it.
Same as the “what brand of biscuit / cartoon character / small African nation with a population below 20m” are you? type questions.
errmm Custard Cream, Top Cat and the Cape Verde islands
That was literally Gordon Brown's key problem, he could never delegate anything properly. Which was ok when he only had to give a budget once a year, but as PM, apparently the backlogs became crazy as people were waiting for him to make a micro-managed decision.
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.
And why would the media want to do that? You are right about it being easier to film damage in Ukraine, though.
Sorry, my "they" was the Russians, as in the comment I was replying to, but it wasn't clear and I should have been explicit.
Small - positive world news story out there - Saudi Arabia has (for the first time) opened its airspace up to Israeli airlines. El Al flights to India, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia no longer need to make a big circle around it.
Liz Truss admits being "excessively enthusiastic" in the past, but adds she now realises she should not try to do too much. So she'll focus on "getting the economy going".
Thanks Liz. But yeah about that land invasion of a European nation and our crippling inflation crisis and Northern Ireland being at breaking point and possible Scottish secession and you know everything else a government has to do… don’t you think as PM you need to focus a bit on that stuff too?
Though maybe given it’s Liz Truss we’d all be better off if she didnt…
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.
Oh, I'd go further - I don't think rejoin will be on the cards in any of our lifetimes, except maybe @Leon's. (And, for the record, I don't think it's that likely even in our childrens' lifetimes etc., I'm just making it clear that it is highly unlikely to happen for a very long time.)
It is - however - perfectly possible that the EU (or the Eurozone) will cease to exist in our lifetime.
With those both out the way, I would expect that the UK's relationship with the EU will probably become closer over time, as both sides will see bilateral areas where increased cooperation is fruitful. Over time this may - or may not - move towards something that looks not a million miles different from the EU-Switzerland relationship.
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
Then military training should extend to looking at the weather forecast and the state of the grass.
Also steam trains in the Highlands. Recent one at Glenfinnan. @Sunil_Prasannan, you have been warned.
He's not going on that line - but to Kyle and THurso/Wick. No steamies on those at present, unless there is a one off special.
Should go to Perth via Edinburgh to take in the Ladybank-Perth line too, which I am entering as I write! A lovely bit of railway through a quiet corner of Fife.
Small - positive world news story out there - Saudi Arabia has (for the first time) opened its airspace up to Israeli airlines. El Al flights to India, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia no longer need to make a big circle around it.
This may - or may not - be related to Biden's Middle East visit.
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
The vast majority of males would have married, and their wives would have had children, sure.
Tory donor Lord Cruddas has threatened to cut off the party's funding if the leadership contest becomes a parliamentary coronation.
The billionaire City financier, who has given more than £3.5m to the Conservatives and £1.5m to the Vote Leave campaign, told The Telegraph that he is considering closing his wallet to the party for the first time since he began donating in 2010.
Small - positive world news story out there - Saudi Arabia has (for the first time) opened its airspace up to Israeli airlines. El Al flights to India, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia no longer need to make a big circle around it.
This may - or may not - be related to Biden's Middle East visit.
They heard the Israel/Palestine <- UK/Ireland comparison and thought "hey, we don't mind the Brits*, maybe those Israelis are not so bad afterall"?
*may or may not be true, but we buy their oil, sell them weapons and don't ask too many awkward questions about human rights etc
Liz Truss admits being "excessively enthusiastic" in the past, but adds she now realises she should not try to do too much. So she'll focus on "getting the economy going".
Thanks Liz. But yeah about that land invasion of a European nation and our crippling inflation crisis and Northern Ireland being at breaking point and possible Scottish secession and you know everything else a government has to do… don’t you think as PM you need to focus a bit on that stuff too?
Though maybe given it’s Liz Truss we’d all be better off if she didnt…
FO, MOD, Treasury, NI Office, Scottish Office. Her implied answer to Mordaunt's I can't delegate.
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...
Which is why the US government set the Federal speed limit to just 55 miles per hour back in 1973.
Of course, cars are both rather more aerodynamic and heavier than then, so the impact of speed on efficiency will be slightly reduced.
Or it could mean that more young women are dating older men, than young men are dating older women.
Or that there are more lesbian couples than male gay ones (almost certainly true)
Or that men answering a survey are more likely to imagine they are footloose and “single” than women, in the same circumstances. Historically at least there was more stigma attached to spinsterhood.
The far more useful polling - although this is too sophisticated - would be on what people wanted to do next given that hindsight:
(a) TCA + override NI protocol + diverge like a bad-boy (b) keep TCA as it is - no change (c) minor alignments + extras (phytosanitary alignment and strike details for work-visas, musicians, culture workers, and extra security/police co-op) and outer rim EU association (Macron idea) (d) EEA-EFTA (maybe with a customs union on top) (e) Rejoin antebellum (f) Rejoin full-fat
My guess is we'd get a clear plurality on (c) with maybe some for (d).
Just because quite a few wish we'd never dropped from (e) to (b) doesn't mean they're now going to throw their hands-up and move to (f).
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.)
There are quite a lot of low cost, low efficiency solar technologies out there that could have widespread usage - windows with CdTe or CIGS coverings, that would never be enough to power a building, but which could easily reduce energy consumption by 10-15%, and which (if installed when the building is built) my only add 1% to total costs.
And there's a company that a spinout from the University of Melbourne that's hoping to launch solar paint later this year. This would only be 1-2% efficient, but which could be extremely cheap to make and install. (That being said, I do worry that in some places, it would lead to buildings absorbing more heat - so I would want to see some more work before getting too excited.)
Shaun Lintern @ShaunLintern NEW: 999 callers for suspected heart attacks or stroke in West Midlands are now being told it could be several hours before an ambulance reaches them.
@OFFICIALWMAS lost 2,300 hours of ambulance time outside hospitals on Monday with 700 emergency calls waiting at one point
"280 people BURNED to death - basically - as they race from their homes, pets shrieking in pain as their adorable eyes MELT
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
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...
Which is why the US government set the Federal speed limit to just 55 miles per hour back in 1973.
Of course, cars are both rather more aerodynamic and heavier than then, so the impact of speed on efficiency will be slightly reduced.
Ooh, that's an interesting question. The increased weight will increase the rolling resistance of the tyres, so not sure how that balances out with changes in speed. And then a large factor will be the optimisation of the gearing and the engine.
I've no idea how those have changed, so I wouldn't be certain that the improved aerodynamics would be the dominant factor.
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...
Which is why the US government set the Federal speed limit to just 55 miles per hour back in 1973.
Of course, cars are both rather more aerodynamic and heavier than then, so the impact of speed on efficiency will be slightly reduced.
The cars' occupants have perhaps become less aerodynamic and also heavier, too?
i. Leave the ECHR (YEs yes I know it's not part of the EU) or ii. Join the Euro.
Perhaps do both not sure that'd be allowed by the powers that be though...
Not sure where you get your boner for the Euro from?
Surely, the 2010-2011 eurozone crisis, and flat-footedness of the ECB since, has shown why that'd have been a bad idea for us.
It'd be a huge extra economic constraint for the removal of some marginal trade frictions. True, it would give us more political influence (as we'd be signed up to the whole thing) but that'd be far from decisive and only in one direction.
If the whole thing ever fell over, and it often looks very shaky, then we'd be horribly exposed.
Given the state of the ambulance service, Monday and Tuesday's furnace temperatures is going to cause a massive political issue. There is bound to be a huge spike in calls for heart attacks, chest pains and the like.
The leader's debates will be blown out of the coverage.
My guess is this is going to be a massive and explosive issue and not in a good way for tory polling.
i. Leave the ECHR (YEs yes I know it's not part of the EU) or ii. Join the Euro.
Perhaps do both not sure that'd be allowed by the powers that be though...
Not sure where you get your boner for the Euro from?
Surely, the 2010-2011 eurozone crisis, and flat-footedness of the ECB since, has shown why that'd have been a bad idea for us.
It'd be a huge extra economic constraint for the removal of some marginal trade frictions. True, it would give us more political influence (as we'd be signed up to the whole thing) but that'd be far from decisive and only in one direction.
If the whole thing ever fell over, and it often looks very shaky, then we'd be horribly exposed.
It's just a way of framing the question of European political integration in the starkest terms. Either all in or all out.
i. Leave the ECHR (YEs yes I know it's not part of the EU) or ii. Join the Euro.
Perhaps do both not sure that'd be allowed by the powers that be though...
Not sure where you get your boner for the Euro from?
Surely, the 2010-2011 eurozone crisis, and flat-footedness of the ECB since, has shown why that'd have been a bad idea for us.
It'd be a huge extra economic constraint for the removal of some marginal trade frictions. True, it would give us more political influence (as we'd be signed up to the whole thing) but that'd be far from decisive and only in one direction.
If the whole thing ever fell over, and it often looks very shaky, then we'd be horribly exposed.
By "extra economic constraint" do you really mean "one fewer thing for the government to fuck up"?
Comments
TENS of THOUSANDS expected to DIE as extreme brutal ravaging temperatures STALK THE LANDS LIKE A DRUNKEN GORGON
Billions of hectares of fertile land INCINERATED. Savage spires of flame eating up entire countries like huge golden cathedrals of Satan with jaws the size of Portugal and even bigger than that
DOGS ON THE MOON
Diane Abbot EXPLODES. Orgasmo-furnaces in HELL. AYYYYYYYYDEATHDEATH ahahahaha DEATH"
BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62175758
Probably massively 'wrong' would be the response at present. But an interesting one if people actually think about it. Where would we be at now with a Hunt premiership? Would we be in a better or worse Brexit position? How would Covid have been handled? Would there still have been a big Conservative majority in 2019?
I'm not a Hunt fan, but still... Overall, though, I blame the MPs for the choice they provided, more than the membersfor their choice, which was possible somewhat rational given their interests, if not the country's.
Not something I lose sleep over.
On the other hand, the poster is fucking batshit.
Using your definition of single as "not living with a partner" I was single for most of the time I was 18-29, but my wife was not. We have AFAIK both only lived with each other, but I'm 2 years older than her, so she had more of her twenties as "not single" than I did.
Its not that unusual for couples to have the man a couple of years older than the woman, I'm not sure why that is, but its often the way. So you'd expect looking at the same age group to have more women in a relationship than men.
On average men are 2.3 years older than women they're in a relationship with.
That doesn't mean that the men won't end up in a relationship, it just means they entered one on average two years later than women did on average, so spent more of their twenties single.
There are any number of options up to that point. One could start by standing by our treaty obligations re: NI.
I don't really blame those who picked the short term fix - it made sense, and god knows where we'd be if Hunt had been in charge of delivering Brexit. I disagree that it was the Conservative MP's fault specifically though - the real villains were those pro-Remain MPs of the 2017 Parliament who thought they were being oh-so-clever in trying to stop us leaving.
That said, he is even now a more competent president than Barack Obama was, a low bar, I'll admit.
The problem the Democratic Party has is similar to that the Labour Party had, the support Bernie Sanders has among so many activists. That makes it difficult to nominate a competent, moderate centrist, who might actually have practical solutions to the nation's problems, for example, fentanyl.
We are in crisis...transport...inflation...economy...NHS...Putin...unprecedented weather, and all they want to talk about are public lavatory arrangements.
Starmer and Davy may be uninspiring, but can't be more unhinged than this bunch
Based on what I choose to measure, Sweden had a far better pandemic than its neighbours.
"Only if your opponent is Liz Truss......"
They may or may not be barking, but talking about loos isn't evidence of this. They're addressing one of the priorities of the core vote.
If the ambient temperature of the wine goes above this, chill it in the fridge first.
For light reds, consider 15-16c as a max.
And for the love of God, don't chill white to 1c - it kills all the flavour. 6c, please
The Conservatoilets has quite a ring to it.
Doesn’t he know that is the ONLY wrong answer to that question?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctnB5LkPK9k
I have seen quite a few reports of using naval Surface to Surface missiles against Ukrainian ground targets, though. The Russians have quite a lot of big anti-ship missiles, and they are fairly inaccurate against ground targets.
And why the MoD set fire to Salisbury Plain earlier in the week.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-07-12/ministry-of-defence-issues-statement-as-wild-fires-burn-on-salisbury-plain
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-ben-wallace-visits-armed-forces-of-ukraine-as-training-programme-starts-across-the-uk
Indeed, it is starting to sound odd to hear politicians - like Mordaunt in her Beth Rigby interview - claim to be “passionate” about Brexit. The words now have a decidedly musty flavour, their virility has dissipated.
For the benefit of thickos, this does not mean Britain is rejoining the EU, merely that the period of pretending it amounts to a strategic vision is rapidly approaching its twilight.
The Conservatoilets: you want to take a piss? We want to take the piss.
The Conservatoilets: Brexit has sent us round the U bend...
Pro tip, to avoid awkwardness, don't call them by their first names, always call them darling or sweetheart.
Otherwise you end up calling the wrong name and boy does that lead to a whole world of trouble.
I'm in the Opinium panel for the snap poll on this debate.
In that case I take it back. They have indeed gone mad.
The period when stopping Brexit was a substitute for a strategic vision has passed. Whatever future we choose will not be based on hankering for 2016.
@Steven_Swinford
·
50m
Liz Truss has gone *very* big on tax cuts
* Reversing corporation tax cuts - £16bn
* Scrapping national insurance hikes - £12.5billion
* Green levy moratorium - £4.2billion
So Liz Truss has made ***£32.7bn*** worth over commitments on tax cuts
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1547940633138016260
Same as the “what brand of biscuit / cartoon character / small African nation with a population below 20m” are you? type questions.
Oh.
That's not gonna be problem in No. 10 no siree...
That was literally Gordon Brown's key problem, he could never delegate anything properly. Which was ok when he only had to give a budget once a year, but as PM, apparently the backlogs became crazy as people were waiting for him to make a micro-managed decision.
Thanks Liz. But yeah about that land invasion of a European nation and our crippling inflation crisis and Northern Ireland being at breaking point and possible Scottish secession and you know everything else a government has to do… don’t you think as PM you need to focus a bit on that stuff too?
Though maybe given it’s Liz Truss we’d all be better off if she didnt…
It is - however - perfectly possible that the EU (or the Eurozone) will cease to exist in our lifetime.
With those both out the way, I would expect that the UK's relationship with the EU will probably become closer over time, as both sides will see bilateral areas where increased cooperation is fruitful. Over time this may - or may not - move towards something that looks not a million miles different from the EU-Switzerland relationship.
The billionaire City financier, who has given more than £3.5m to the Conservatives and £1.5m to the Vote Leave campaign, told The Telegraph that he is considering closing his wallet to the party for the first time since he began donating in 2010.
*may or may not be true, but we buy their oil, sell them weapons and don't ask too many awkward questions about human rights etc
Of course, cars are both rather more aerodynamic and heavier than then, so the impact of speed on efficiency will be slightly reduced.
Or that men answering a survey are more likely to imagine they are footloose and “single” than women, in the same circumstances. Historically at least there was more stigma attached to spinsterhood.
There are lots of potential factors
(a) TCA + override NI protocol + diverge like a bad-boy
(b) keep TCA as it is - no change
(c) minor alignments + extras (phytosanitary alignment and strike details for work-visas, musicians, culture workers, and extra security/police co-op) and outer rim EU association (Macron idea)
(d) EEA-EFTA (maybe with a customs union on top)
(e) Rejoin antebellum
(f) Rejoin full-fat
My guess is we'd get a clear plurality on (c) with maybe some for (d).
Just because quite a few wish we'd never dropped from (e) to (b) doesn't mean they're now going to throw their hands-up and move to (f).
And there's a company that a spinout from the University of Melbourne that's hoping to launch solar paint later this year. This would only be 1-2% efficient, but which could be extremely cheap to make and install. (That being said, I do worry that in some places, it would lead to buildings absorbing more heat - so I would want to see some more work before getting too excited.)
@ShaunLintern
NEW: 999 callers for suspected heart attacks or stroke in West Midlands are now being told it could be several hours before an ambulance reaches them.
@OFFICIALWMAS
lost 2,300 hours of ambulance time outside hospitals on Monday with 700 emergency calls waiting at one point
I've no idea how those have changed, so I wouldn't be certain that the improved aerodynamics would be the dominant factor.
When I was 23, I was mostly single, because the 23 year old girls I knew were dating 32 year old men.
Surely, the 2010-2011 eurozone crisis, and flat-footedness of the ECB since, has shown why that'd have been a bad idea for us.
It'd be a huge extra economic constraint for the removal of some marginal trade frictions. True, it would give us more political influence (as we'd be signed up to the whole thing) but that'd be far from decisive and only in one direction.
If the whole thing ever fell over, and it often looks very shaky, then we'd be horribly exposed.
The leader's debates will be blown out of the coverage.
My guess is this is going to be a massive and explosive issue and not in a good way for tory polling.