No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
I'm saying if it was safe for him to have that activity it was safe for you and I to have done the same.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
The problem with all this is that there were stacks of exemptions from day 1. We couldn't shut the entire economy down, so key workers were designated. Was a load of people in a factory a high risk factor of spreading the pox and potentially killing their colleagues? Yes - and for those of us running such factories it was a fucking nightmare.
It was never about x is safe and y is unsafe. It was always about managing risk, and certain activities had to do so because just shutting them down was problematic.
Political campaigning was on the list. Its easy for the people who either hated all restrictions or are pathological about Keir Starmer to retrospectively try and change the rules and the context, but it doesn't change reality. No matter how angry you are that most of us are ignoring your tirades.
The government as you say had to go through a difficult exercise which lead to some of the absurdities we saw (X is allowed, Y is not). Because in aggregate that seeming anomaly brought about a decrease in overall activity which was the required aim.
But that persisted far, far beyond what was reasonable or consistent with a liberal democracy.
And that is an argument people are perfectly free to make. Its just that its all a bit one sided when the Tories introduce the restrictions that applied in spring 21 and all parties make use of it and then suddenly its all Starmer's fault.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
As I said yesterday, I find flag-shagging to be baffling. If you want to use it as an emblem of the country and a marketing tool, that's great! We sell so much Chinese-made union jack covered tat to tourists and we could do a lot more. There have been waves of "Cool Britannia" style export bonanzas. Which are also great.
The problem is when the flag-shaggers take over. The flag ceases to be an emblem of identity and trade but instead a token of exclusion and hate and division.
On my recent travels I noticed how many people in Armenia and Montenegro are wearing Union Jack themed apparel - usually tee-shirts but sometimes bags etc
It’s an incredible “brand”. More even than the Stars and Stripes, in fact much more so
How many of them explicitly associate it with the UK? No idea. Maybe few. But it sells things worldwide
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
They are trying to a-peel to their *core* vote
But they can only manage it by finding a windfall.
Or else, as Dennis Healey didn't say, "squeeze them until the pips squeak"
That was Sir Eric Geddes, on being told by Keynes that Germany couldn't afford £6.6 billion reparations:
'We will squeeze them as a lemon is squeezed - until the pips squeak.'
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
Not really sure what is wrong with "Distinctively British", unless you are perhaps a Citizen of Nowhere.
We have distinctively French, and distinctively Italian.
I just don't see the problem.
There is perhaps a problem apply it to Sir Starmer, though. He needs to explain and demonstrate.
What is distinctly british though? Apples? No Pie? No Apple Pie? No
We need to be pushing the things that are culturally unique - Fish and Chips, Bangers and Mash, Haggis, Black Pudding, Whisky, Cornish Pasties etc
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
They are trying to a-peel to their *core* vote
But they can only manage it by finding a windfall.
Or else, as Dennis Healey didn't say, "squeeze them until the pips squeak"
That was Sir Eric Geddes, on being told by Keynes that Germany couldn't afford £6.6 billion reparations:
'We will squeeze them as a lemon is squeezed - until the pips squeak.'
Indeed, but Dennis Healey was incorrectly quoted as saying he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked. He didn't say it, but he did do it nonetheless
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
I'm saying if it was safe for him to have that activity it was safe for you and I to have done the same.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
The problem with all this is that there were stacks of exemptions from day 1. We couldn't shut the entire economy down, so key workers were designated. Was a load of people in a factory a high risk factor of spreading the pox and potentially killing their colleagues? Yes - and for those of us running such factories it was a fucking nightmare.
It was never about x is safe and y is unsafe. It was always about managing risk, and certain activities had to do so because just shutting them down was problematic.
Political campaigning was on the list. Its easy for the people who either hated all restrictions or are pathological about Keir Starmer to retrospectively try and change the rules and the context, but it doesn't change reality. No matter how angry you are that most of us are ignoring your tirades.
The government as you say had to go through a difficult exercise which lead to some of the absurdities we saw (X is allowed, Y is not). Because in aggregate that seeming anomaly brought about a decrease in overall activity which was the required aim.
But that persisted far, far beyond what was reasonable or consistent with a liberal democracy.
And that is an argument people are perfectly free to make. Its just that its all a bit one sided when the Tories introduce the restrictions that applied in spring 21 and all parties make use of it and then suddenly its all Starmer's fault.
Because Sir Keir supported all the restrictions (except he didn't think they were strict enough) and objected to removing them.
Thought experiment: Sir Keir is PM and Boris is LOTO. What happens? My guess is that Sir Keir tries to introduce the same or slightly stronger restrictions for longer, and Boris actually provides an opposition advocating fewer restrictions for less time. Unable to justify the restrictions, Sir Keir is forced to back down. Conclusion: Sir Keir's support for the concept of the restrictions actually prolonged them, and therefore he doesn't get off the hook for not being PM.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
As I said yesterday, I find flag-shagging to be baffling. If you want to use it as an emblem of the country and a marketing tool, that's great! We sell so much Chinese-made union jack covered tat to tourists and we could do a lot more. There have been waves of "Cool Britannia" style export bonanzas. Which are also great.
The problem is when the flag-shaggers take over. The flag ceases to be an emblem of identity and trade but instead a token of exclusion and hate and division.
On my recent travels I noticed how many people in Armenia and Montenegro are wearing Union Jack themed apparel - usually tee-shirts but sometimes bags etc
It’s an incredible “brand”. More even than the Stars and Stripes, in fact much more so
How many of them explicitly associate it with the UK? No idea. Maybe few. But it sells things worldwide
Same thing in Indonesia - many/most don’t get the connection with the UK. Nonetheless if SINDY happens rUK should keep the current flag.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
I'm saying if it was safe for him to have that activity it was safe for you and I to have done the same.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
The problem with all this is that there were stacks of exemptions from day 1. We couldn't shut the entire economy down, so key workers were designated. Was a load of people in a factory a high risk factor of spreading the pox and potentially killing their colleagues? Yes - and for those of us running such factories it was a fucking nightmare.
It was never about x is safe and y is unsafe. It was always about managing risk, and certain activities had to do so because just shutting them down was problematic.
Political campaigning was on the list. Its easy for the people who either hated all restrictions or are pathological about Keir Starmer to retrospectively try and change the rules and the context, but it doesn't change reality. No matter how angry you are that most of us are ignoring your tirades.
The government as you say had to go through a difficult exercise which lead to some of the absurdities we saw (X is allowed, Y is not). Because in aggregate that seeming anomaly brought about a decrease in overall activity which was the required aim.
But that persisted far, far beyond what was reasonable or consistent with a liberal democracy.
And that is an argument people are perfectly free to make. Its just that its all a bit one sided when the Tories introduce the restrictions that applied in spring 21 and all parties make use of it and then suddenly its all Starmer's fault.
As I said, fuck them all.
Starmer's fault was that on the biggest issue of our time he failed to oppose the government. Even Jezza understood that the Opposition's premise must be that they could do everything better than the government is doing it.
In normal times and especially in times of crisis. Of course as @Bart notes he would have been harsher so I suppose we should be thankful he supported Boris throughout.
Good on him. Half an hour with Andrew Neil should be considered compulsory for anyone wanting high office. The antidote to the rest of the clickbait media.
I presume Truss will take Johnson's lead and chicken out. I was impressed that Sturgeon took him on last election, went predictably badly for her.
Inevitable, I'm afraid, from the moment Ukraine won and one of the Big Five came second.
I'm intrigued by the line representatives of UA: PBC will work with the BBC to develop and implement the Ukrainian elements of next year’s shows.
Presumably it will be presented by Ukraine's answer to... actually, who would host it if we won it? Whatever, it'll be here but very much Ukraine's show.
Mr. Eagles, if Truss wins, will you be retaining your membership?
Yes, because there’ll be another leadership contest before the election.
So you expect another election after Truss is found out and removed.
And you expect that election will also allow a member's vote.
The Tory party is utterly insane if that's the case.
Yes. Just look at how few Tory MPs have backed her.
Who will get the votes together to remove Truss ?
If they do, there's a strong chance Boris can cobble together 120 MPs. He wins very easily from that point.
So the anti-Boris faction won't move against her, and neither will the Boris loyalists.
I think she's secure till the next election.
Boris coming back before the next GE, after two divisive leadership contests, would be the most self-indulgent thing a party has done in Government, surely ever. It would surely end the Conservatives as a force in politics for a decade. As much as I kind of want to see them go there (for the entertainment value, though I feel a weird anxiety knot at the thought of the consequences of them fannying around like that), I don't think even they are mad enough to behave like that in Government.
Preferred PM amongst 2019 Conservative voters in weekend Deltapoll
Whereas what makes a difference is which candidate (if any) will bring over and bring back the several million people needed who won't currently vote Tory but in many cases used to.
Current Tory voters are pretty much their ineradicable base. Their guaranteed votes are necessary but not sufficient.
Good on him. Half an hour with Andrew Neil should be considered compulsory for anyone wanting high office. The antidote to the rest of the clickbait media.
Yes and no. First, think about the word "great". Second, if the slave trade was such a boon then its abolition for humanitarian reasons knowing there would be a great economic hit is doubly meritorious.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
Mr. Eagles, if Truss wins, will you be retaining your membership?
Yes, because there’ll be another leadership contest before the election.
So you expect another election after Truss is found out and removed.
And you expect that election will also allow a member's vote.
The Tory party is utterly insane if that's the case.
Yes. Just look at how few Tory MPs have backed her.
Who will get the votes together to remove Truss ?
If they do, there's a strong chance Boris can cobble together 120 MPs. He wins very easily from that point.
So the anti-Boris faction won't move against her, and neither will the Boris loyalists.
I think she's secure till the next election.
Boris coming back before the next GE, after two divisive leadership contests, would be the most self-indulgent thing a party has done in Government, surely ever. It would surely end the Conservatives as a force in politics for a decade. As much as I kind of want to see them go there (for the entertainment value, though I feel a weird anxiety knot at the thought of the consequences of them fannying around like that), I don't think even they are mad enough to behave like that in Government.
Preferred PM amongst 2019 Conservative voters in weekend Deltapoll
Whereas what makes a difference is which candidate (if any) will bring over and bring back the several million people needed who won't currently vote Tory but in many cases used to.
Current Tory voters are pretty much their ineradicable base. Their guaranteed votes are necessary but not sufficient.
This was a poll of 2019 Tory voters, ie the voters who gave the Tories a majority of 80. It was not a poll of current Tory voters
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
Sad news. A wonderful actor with a supreme range. Villain, hero, comedy, drama, Shakespeare, he could do them all.
Star Trek legend.
Chancellor Gorkon and Gul Madred.
Time Bandit nemesis...
Stage fright pretty well ended his stage career in the early 70s, and he ended up doing a fair amount of average TV stuff (amazingly varied list of credits if you peruse IMDB), but he was a genuinely fine actor throughout.
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
So nothing happened before 1830? Britain WAS the major industrial power then. And continued to rely on slave plantations for critical elements of the economy (much cotton; cheap calories in the form of sugar).
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
Inevitable, I'm afraid, from the moment Ukraine won and one of the Big Five came second.
I'm intrigued by the line representatives of UA: PBC will work with the BBC to develop and implement the Ukrainian elements of next year’s shows.
Presumably it will be presented by Ukraine's answer to... actually, who would host it if we won it? Whatever, it'll be here but very much Ukraine's show.
The BBC's own press article about it suggests it's going to be a full BBC production and the cultural content will be shared with Ukraine. No host broadcaster or host city would give up the chance to toot their own horn so I'm guessing we'll get a big slice of British culture too.
I think the hosts will be British or 1/2 Britons and 1/2 Ukrainians.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
And reflect on the fact that the police have since settled the matter.
That you and Barty are evidently disappointed doesn't factor into it.
I never said it was illegal.
I said that it should have been legal for the rest of us instead of illegal and "reckless".
It was legal for you to gather for the purposes of political campaigning and various other purposes. It was not legal for you to gather for another set of purposes that the Conservative government (supported by Labour in opposition) had decided were not as important.
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
At best this is averages muddying the situation for the individual.
Last year I lost 16 Kilos and have kept that weight off. I'll spare you from the details, but I acchieved this using a calorie counting app which was really easy to use.
I was as surprised as maybe many of you will be reading this, that an increase in exercise made almost no contribution to the weight loss. The main reason for my sucessful weight loss was eating less (shock). And yes I have the data, analysis and graphs which can back this up.
Free Trade was rather one way. For example tariffs on Indian textiles coming here, while no tarrif on our exports.
Very often our policy of free trade was conducted rather like a Special Military Operation, at the point of a gun.
Other countries did this too of course, but it does make Free Trade a less successful policy when we are no longer able to militarily control the seas.
There are 4 others of the same size to the continent due by 2025 (France, France, Denmark, Norway), and one smaller one to the ROI. And one 1GW one to/from France just started up at the end of May.
Though I suspect Penelope Portsmouth may have stopped one of those because she thinks it would make us vulnerable to the French.
Inevitable, I'm afraid, from the moment Ukraine won and one of the Big Five came second.
I'm intrigued by the line representatives of UA: PBC will work with the BBC to develop and implement the Ukrainian elements of next year’s shows.
Presumably it will be presented by Ukraine's answer to... actually, who would host it if we won it? Whatever, it'll be here but very much Ukraine's show.
The BBC's own press article about it suggests it's going to be a full BBC production and the cultural content will be shared with Ukraine. No host broadcaster or host city would give up the chance to toot their own horn so I'm guessing we'll get a big slice of British culture too.
I think the hosts will be British or 1/2 Britons and 1/2 Ukrainians.
Probably should do that old trick of making the venue temporarily part of Ukraine (hope the Russians dont then bomb it!) for the duration of the show- Didnt that happen in wartime with some London Hotel where a room was made a part of Yugoslavia for some royal reason?
Good on him. Half an hour with Andrew Neil should be considered compulsory for anyone wanting high office. The antidote to the rest of the clickbait media.
That's why the Tw@tterati hate him so much.
Amazing that the Boris fanbois didn't seem to think him running away at the first whiff of Brillo's toupee glue was in any way disqualificatory.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
Business is always about doing stuff as cheaply as possible. The IR grew out of a slave economy; what do you think spinning jennies spun, where from?
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
Ah so you yearn for a more radical socialist offer then.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
Not really sure what is wrong with "Distinctively British", unless you are perhaps a Citizen of Nowhere.
We have distinctively French, and distinctively Italian.
I just don't see the problem.
There is perhaps a problem apply it to Sir Starmer, though. He needs to explain and demonstrate.
What is distinctly british though? Apples? No Pie? No Apple Pie? No
We need to be pushing the things that are culturally unique - Fish and Chips, Bangers and Mash, Haggis, Black Pudding, Whisky, Cornish Pasties etc
Britain does boast a unique variety of apple breeds
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
At best this is averages muddying the situation for the individual.
Last year I lost 16 Kilos and have kept that weight off. I'll spare you from the details, but I acchieved this using a calorie counting app which was really easy to use.
I was as surprised as maybe many of you will be reading this, that an increase in exercise made almost no contribution to the weight loss. The main reason for my sucessful weight loss was eating less (shock). And yes I have the data, analysis and graphs which can back this up.
Is that true tho?
Exercise doesn’t burn off many calories, per se - agreed. Don’t you have to walk 10 miles to burn off a Big Mac? Something like that
And YET it helps in so many other ways. It makes you look better, which gives you positive motivation to continue losing weight, it boosts the mood by itself (as a hit of carbs does but in superior fashion) and it also speeds the metabolism, so what you eat gets used up faster
Good on him. Half an hour with Andrew Neil should be considered compulsory for anyone wanting high office. The antidote to the rest of the clickbait media.
That's why the Tw@tterati hate him so much.
Amazing that the Boris fanbois didn't seem to think him running away at the first whiff of Brillo's toupee glue was in any way disqualificatory.
His opponent, I will remind you, was Jeremy Corbyn.
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
So nothing happened before 1830? Britain WAS the major industrial power then. And continued to rely on slave plantations for critical elements of the economy (much cotton; cheap calories in the form of sugar).
Slave produced cotton came a bit later and sugar was a luxury commodity initially.
The capital raised by forced labour and the manufacturing of manacles and chains etc in the Midlands were more of a factor in creating the conditions of industrialisation here.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
They are trying to a-peel to their *core* vote
But they can only manage it by finding a windfall.
Or else, as Dennis Healey didn't say, "squeeze them until the pips squeak"
That was Sir Eric Geddes, on being told by Keynes that Germany couldn't afford £6.6 billion reparations:
'We will squeeze them as a lemon is squeezed - until the pips squeak.'
Indeed, but Dennis Healey was incorrectly quoted as saying he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked. He didn't say it, but he did do it nonetheless
He did say he'd "Squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak"
A couple of weeks later at his first Budget, two Tory MPs wore Chairman Mao suits to celebrate Healey becoming the first former Communist Party member to deliver the Budget
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
I dunno BR: Seems to me that at least one of the major inputs to said industrial economy had an awful lot to do with slavery.
I also remember reading a paper that suggested that the large chunk of the capital that was invested in UK industry came from reparations paid to the slave owning middle classes by the UK government when they abolished slave ownership.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Warner and Stewart first worked together in a production of Hamlet in 1965. Warner praised Stewart, who was early in his Shakespearean career at the time. Warner had previously appeared as different characters in two Star Trek films: St. John Talbot in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Chancellor Gorkon in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The actor initially cast as Gul Madred in "Chain of Command" dropped out on short notice, and with only a few days before production, Warner had no opportunity to learn his lines. His dialogue was written onto boards for him to read out as he went along. He preferred the Madred character to either of his previous Star Trek characters because of the scenes with Stewart, which he called "wonderful"...
Inevitable, I'm afraid, from the moment Ukraine won and one of the Big Five came second.
I'm intrigued by the line representatives of UA: PBC will work with the BBC to develop and implement the Ukrainian elements of next year’s shows.
Presumably it will be presented by Ukraine's answer to... actually, who would host it if we won it? Whatever, it'll be here but very much Ukraine's show.
The BBC's own press article about it suggests it's going to be a full BBC production and the cultural content will be shared with Ukraine. No host broadcaster or host city would give up the chance to toot their own horn so I'm guessing we'll get a big slice of British culture too.
I think the hosts will be British or 1/2 Britons and 1/2 Ukrainians.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
Ah so you yearn for a more radical socialist offer then.
We should have a pint sometime.
This bloke seems to have something different to offer, committing to renationalisation of water, energy and rail. They should make him leader.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Yes its fair to say that the Government, on a tiny minority of occasions, stood up against the doommongering.
Not nearly enough though. And the Opposition did even less.
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
Business is always about doing stuff as cheaply as possible. The IR grew out of a slave economy; what do you think spinning jennies spun, where from?
The key invention for the cotton industry was the cotton gin, invented in the USA in 1794. Prior to this processing cotton on a large scale was uneconomic.
Good on him. Half an hour with Andrew Neil should be considered compulsory for anyone wanting high office. The antidote to the rest of the clickbait media.
I presume Truss will take Johnson's lead and chicken out. I was impressed that Sturgeon took him on last election, went predictably badly for her.
Yep, really stuffed the EssEnnPee in that election.
Altenatively most voters don't give a toss about 'GB News' Brillo, and those that do are already very established in their views.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
If the government was intimidated by anything it was the overwhelming public support for tougher restrictions, and the impact going against that would have had on their poll ratings. I think that is a far more realistic explanation why the instincts of some, but not all or even a clear majority, of the cabinet were rejected rather than them being scared of a few experts.
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
Fourth, we will re energise communities and spread economic power.
And fifth, we will refocus our investment on boosting productivity.
SKS's great principles.
The only meaningful political principles are ones whose denial or opposite are also meaningful. To govern is to choose. To govern well is to choose rightly. Do these principles make any choices at all?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Yes its fair to say that the Government, on a tiny minority of occasions, stood up against the doommongering.
Not nearly enough though. And the Opposition did even less.
Errant nonsense. There was tons of advice they chose not to follow. You can go read all the SAGE minutes for yourself.
And that is how it should be: scientists offer advice (often contradictory), other stakeholders offer advice, and it has to be our political leaders who make the final decision. My experience of being in the room… or rather in the Zoom meetings… was precisely that. This myth that the doommongerers forced the Govt is conspiracy theory nonsense.
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
It's a spoof account.
The rather massive giveaway being no blue tick and a handful of followers.
However when are twitter going to really crack down on spoof account ripping off logos etc.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Yes its fair to say that the Government, on a tiny minority of occasions, stood up against the doommongering.
Not nearly enough though. And the Opposition did even less.
Specifically, they didn't stand up to them in spring 2020, allowing restrictions on our fundamental freedoms to become normalised.
Inevitable, I'm afraid, from the moment Ukraine won and one of the Big Five came second.
I'm intrigued by the line representatives of UA: PBC will work with the BBC to develop and implement the Ukrainian elements of next year’s shows.
Presumably it will be presented by Ukraine's answer to... actually, who would host it if we won it? Whatever, it'll be here but very much Ukraine's show.
The BBC's own press article about it suggests it's going to be a full BBC production and the cultural content will be shared with Ukraine. No host broadcaster or host city would give up the chance to toot their own horn so I'm guessing we'll get a big slice of British culture too.
I think the hosts will be British or 1/2 Britons and 1/2 Ukrainians.
Probably should do that old trick of making the venue temporarily part of Ukraine (hope the Russians dont then bomb it!) for the duration of the show- Didnt that happen in wartime with some London Hotel where a room was made a part of Yugoslavia for some royal reason?
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
If the government was intimidated by anything it was the overwhelming public support for tougher restrictions, and the impact going against that would have had on their poll ratings. I think that is a far more realistic explanation why the instincts of some, but not all or even a clear majority, of the cabinet were rejected rather than them being scared of a few experts.
The public support for restrictions was a direct consequence of the doommongering being regurgitated uncritically by TV news.
Fourth, we will re energise communities and spread economic power.
And fifth, we will refocus our investment on boosting productivity.
SKS's great principles.
The only meaningful political principles are ones whose denial or opposite are also meaningful. To govern is to choose. To govern well is to choose rightly. Do these principles make any choices at all?
Well, four of the five would disqualify someone from being a member of Bluekip.
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
It's a spoof account.
Okay. Caught me!
In any case, "these people" aren't the only one that eat/drink foreign produce. I'd bet that almost everyone does.
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
Business is always about doing stuff as cheaply as possible. The IR grew out of a slave economy; what do you think spinning jennies spun, where from?
The key invention for the cotton industry was the cotton gin, invented in the USA in 1794. Prior to this processing cotton on a large scale was uneconomic.
Worth saying that all the manufacturing improvements - resulted in increased slavery because the one thing that couldn't be fixed was harvesting cotton which at the time was a completely manual task...
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Fair point, but some SAGE committee people used the wall to wall covid media coverage to further their own ends.
Could the government have insisted on a media blackout from SAGE people and insist all briefings were initially private?
The main thing I remember Government ignoring in terms of scientific advice on the pandemic was that we (the bit of SAGE I was on) were pushing for, to simplify, more carrot and less stick.
More generally, every lockdown was introduced later that the scientific advice. Advice was to introduce earlier, and then you can expect to come out of lockdown sooner.
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
British oysters are the best in the world
“The only good thing to come out of Britain is oysters” - Pliny
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
It's a spoof account.
Okay. Caught me!
In any case, "these people" aren't the only one that eat/drink foreign produce. I'd bet that almost everyone does.
Thinking about TSEs comment re. “Another leadership election before the next age”
How long do MPs give Truss? Imagine in a years time, when the Labour lead looks bigger and everything else bleak as a result of Truss policy implementation. Presumably it is easier to remove her with such limited parliamentary support
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
If the government was intimidated by anything it was the overwhelming public support for tougher restrictions, and the impact going against that would have had on their poll ratings. I think that is a far more realistic explanation why the instincts of some, but not all or even a clear majority, of the cabinet were rejected rather than them being scared of a few experts.
The public support for restrictions was a direct consequence of the doommongering being regurgitated uncritically by TV news.
Partly.
Public support for restrictions was also the result of Rishi Sunak's lovely furlough panacea, which made all the problems go away.
If they change handle there might well be a good reason. There are a decent number of people on here who provide valuable insight but prefer not to be publicly known / lineage of their posting handles being dragged up e.g. We have had people whose employer has said to them about posting on here.
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
At best this is averages muddying the situation for the individual.
Last year I lost 16 Kilos and have kept that weight off. I'll spare you from the details, but I acchieved this using a calorie counting app which was really easy to use.
I was as surprised as maybe many of you will be reading this, that an increase in exercise made almost no contribution to the weight loss. The main reason for my sucessful weight loss was eating less (shock). And yes I have the data, analysis and graphs which can back this up.
When I worked for a company that was using Prudential as their private health care provider, we had their Vitality package. Big discounts on trainers, bikes, heart rate monitors, and lots of rewards based on how much activity you did - you signed up to upload data on exercise to their system, and you got rewards automatically.
The number of people who actually did stuff, in my office soared. I believe that this actually pays for itself for Prudential by reducing the number of claims.
A lot of people lost fat, if not weight. The numbers vary from individual to individual, but for some people getting your body into “build muscle” mode from “store energy in the time of plenty” mode can take a while.
https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1551504230183309313 Russia is withdrawing 2S7 howitzers from storage at the 94th arsenal located in the city of Omsk. In early April, 170 2S7s were visible in GE imagery. In Planet imagery of June 2, 135 were visible. In the last available images, dated July 18, 110 howitzers were still stored.
Stored outdoors for decades, where winter temperatures are around -25C; summer +25.
Possible result (though this could simply be overuse before replacing the barrel) ?
And what is wrong with Colchester native oysters? Or sparkling wine from Cornwall or Chapeldown? Do these people not realise how good British products are?
The clue that it is bullshit is the saucisson - which would probably last longer than the champagne in storage.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Fair point, but some SAGE committee people used the wall to wall covid media coverage to further their own ends.
Could the government have insisted on a media blackout from SAGE people and insist all briefings were initially private?
We live in a democracy with free speech. I don't see a problem with people with expertise on a topic talking to the media about it!
I believe there are a couple of Dundee Courier fans on here? Not sure if DC gave reasons for not wanting to publish this. I suspect most of us of whatever political persuasion will recognise some elements of 'the fear' and the strategies used to cope with it.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
If the government was intimidated by anything it was the overwhelming public support for tougher restrictions, and the impact going against that would have had on their poll ratings. I think that is a far more realistic explanation why the instincts of some, but not all or even a clear majority, of the cabinet were rejected rather than them being scared of a few experts.
The public support for restrictions was a direct consequence of the doommongering being regurgitated uncritically by TV news.
My support for restrictions was because some very close loved ones would have died had they caught COVID before being vaccinated you arrogant pig. Your sainted Boris nearly died because he ignored COVID prevention advice. One of the most reprehensible things those around Boris did to try and save his arse was to pretend that the sacrifices everyone made during COVID weren’t needed. They were.
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
At best this is averages muddying the situation for the individual.
Last year I lost 16 Kilos and have kept that weight off. I'll spare you from the details, but I acchieved this using a calorie counting app which was really easy to use.
I was as surprised as maybe many of you will be reading this, that an increase in exercise made almost no contribution to the weight loss. The main reason for my sucessful weight loss was eating less (shock). And yes I have the data, analysis and graphs which can back this up.
When I worked for a company that was using Prudential as their private health care provider, we had their Vitality package. Big discounts on trainers, bikes, heart rate monitors, and lots of rewards based on how much activity you did - you signed up to upload data on exercise to their system, and you got rewards automatically.
The number of people who actually did stuff, in my office soared. I believe that this actually pays for itself for Prudential by reducing the number of claims.
A lot of people lost fat, if not weight. The numbers vary from individual to individual, but for some people getting your body into “build muscle” mode from “store energy in the time of plenty” mode can take a while.
Exercise is very good for your health. Exercise has a small role to play in weight reduction.
httpsA /twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1551504230183309313 Russia is withdrawing 2S7 howitzers from storage at the 94th arsenal located in the city of Omsk. In early April, 170 2S7s were visible in GE imagery. In Planet imagery of June 2, 135 were visible. In the last available images, dated July 18, 110 howitzers were still stored.
Stored outdoors for decades, where winter temperatures are around -25C; summer +25.
Possible result (though this could simply be overuse before replacing the barrel) ?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Boris didn’t actually write the laws. The laws were written by civil servants under the instructions of the Conservative government. The next general election will be a choice over whether to continue that Conservative government or not.
That's true, but the instructions in this case effectively came from the doommongering modellers because the government was too weak to stand up to them, not least because Labour under Sir Keir and the media were all on their side.
I was a SAGE participant, a “doommongering modeller” (I wasn’t doing modelling, but I was doing other mongering of doom). It is utterly ludicrous to suggest the Government did everything we wanted or was “too weak to stand up to them”. The Govt ignored lots of scientific advice, the Govt followed other scientific advice, the Govt drew on a range of advice from multiple stakeholders. Ultimately, what was done was the choice of our political leaders.
Fair point, but some SAGE committee people used the wall to wall covid media coverage to further their own ends.
Could the government have insisted on a media blackout from SAGE people and insist all briefings were initially private?
We live in a democracy with free speech. I don't see a problem with people with expertise on a topic talking to the media about it!
Agreed, but I don't see why SAGE's advice could not have been published retrospectively in its entirety so people could judge for themselves after the event and in a much less febrile atmosphere.
https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1551504230183309313 Russia is withdrawing 2S7 howitzers from storage at the 94th arsenal located in the city of Omsk. In early April, 170 2S7s were visible in GE imagery. In Planet imagery of June 2, 135 were visible. In the last available images, dated July 18, 110 howitzers were still stored.
Stored outdoors for decades, where winter temperatures are around -25C; summer +25.
Possible result (though this could simply be overuse before replacing the barrel) ?
There have been various statements that the quality of steel available for making replacements barrels in below specification.
On the pic that was posted on a previous thread of an off centre bore in an alleged Russian weapons (might have been a 73mm off an APC?) - it looked as is it was a section cut from the middle of the barrel, not the end. Maybe the cutting tool shaft banana’d due to being pushed too hard?
I believe there are a couple of Dundee Courier fans on here? Not sure if DC gave reasons for not wanting to publish this. I suspect most of us of whatever political persuasion will recognise some elements of 'the fear' and the strategies used to cope with it.
“I believe there are a couple of Dundee Courier fans on here?”
Is possibly the most poignantly forlorn sentence ever posted on PB. It is also a glimpse of the parochial tedium that would be www.scottishpoliticalbetting.com if ever Sindy won. I bet the PB Nats would be back on PB within hours. Probably moaning about England
Comments
It’s an incredible “brand”. More even than the Stars and Stripes, in fact much more so
How many of them explicitly associate it with the UK? No idea. Maybe few. But it sells things worldwide
➡️ Everything you need to know here: eurovision.tv/story/united-k…
https://twitter.com/eurovision/status/1551522740229783552
BBC better find some budget to pay for it..
'We will squeeze them as a lemon is squeezed - until the pips squeak.'
Apples? No
Pie? No
Apple Pie? No
We need to be pushing the things that are culturally unique - Fish and Chips, Bangers and Mash, Haggis, Black Pudding, Whisky, Cornish Pasties etc
RIP.
A lorry with £20,000 worth of perishable food destined for Jacob Rees-Mogg’s Somerset mansion is stuck in queues at Calais,according to a source.
The luxury food haul- including seafood, oysters, saucisson & champagne- was for Rees-Mogg’s summer party today, but now won’t arrive
https://twitter.com/GBNews_UK/status/1551300577514102786
Thought experiment: Sir Keir is PM and Boris is LOTO. What happens? My guess is that Sir Keir tries to introduce the same or slightly stronger restrictions for longer, and Boris actually provides an opposition advocating fewer restrictions for less time. Unable to justify the restrictions, Sir Keir is forced to back down. Conclusion: Sir Keir's support for the concept of the restrictions actually prolonged them, and therefore he doesn't get off the hook for not being PM.
How Britain Voted in 1997:
25-34: Con 28, Lab 49, LD 16
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
How Britain voted in the 2016 EU referendum:
45-54: Remain 44, Leave 56
Starmer's fault was that on the biggest issue of our time he failed to oppose the government. Even Jezza understood that the Opposition's premise must be that they could do everything better than the government is doing it.
In normal times and especially in times of crisis. Of course as @Bart notes he would have been harsher so I suppose we should be thankful he supported Boris throughout.
Chancellor Gorkon and Gul Madred.
I'm intrigued by the line representatives of UA: PBC will work with the BBC to develop and implement the Ukrainian elements of next year’s shows.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1551523237095510019
Current Tory voters are pretty much their ineradicable base. Their guaranteed votes are necessary but not sufficient.
The rise of Britain as an industrial power took place post-abolitionism.
Medieval serfdom and slavery was about getting things done with as cheap labour as possible, the industrial revolution was about seeking to replace labour to be more productive.
Stage fright pretty well ended his stage career in the early 70s, and he ended up doing a fair amount of average TV stuff (amazingly varied list of credits if you peruse IMDB), but he was a genuinely fine actor throughout.
...
I think the hosts will be British or 1/2 Britons and 1/2 Ukrainians.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/eurovision-2023-bbc-host-city-process-production-plans/
Last year I lost 16 Kilos and have kept that weight off. I'll spare you from the details, but I acchieved this using a calorie counting app which was really easy to use.
I was as surprised as maybe many of you will be reading this, that an increase in exercise made almost no contribution to the weight loss. The main reason for my sucessful weight loss was eating less (shock). And yes I have the data, analysis and graphs which can back this up.
Very often our policy of free trade was conducted rather like a Special Military Operation, at the point of a gun.
Other countries did this too of course, but it does make Free Trade a less successful policy when we are no longer able to militarily control the seas.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-policy-and-regulation/policy-and-regulatory-programmes/interconnectors
There are 4 others of the same size to the continent due by 2025 (France, France, Denmark, Norway), and one smaller one to the ROI. And one 1GW one to/from France just started up at the end of May.
Though I suspect Penelope Portsmouth may have stopped one of those because she thinks it would make us vulnerable to the French.
We should have a pint sometime.
Exercise doesn’t burn off many calories, per se - agreed. Don’t you have to walk 10 miles to burn off a Big Mac? Something like that
And YET it helps in so many other ways. It makes you look better, which gives you positive motivation to continue losing weight, it boosts the mood by itself (as a hit of carbs does but in superior fashion) and it also speeds the metabolism, so what you eat gets used up faster
It’s an essential part of a weight loss campaign
The capital raised by forced labour and the manufacturing of manacles and chains etc in the Midlands were more of a factor in creating the conditions of industrialisation here.
A couple of weeks later at his first Budget, two Tory MPs wore Chairman Mao suits to celebrate Healey becoming the first former Communist Party member to deliver the Budget
I also remember reading a paper that suggested that the large chunk of the capital that was invested in UK industry came from reparations paid to the slave owning middle classes by the UK government when they abolished slave ownership.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1235284093056712705
Not nearly enough though. And the Opposition did even less.
Altenatively most voters don't give a toss about 'GB News' Brillo, and those that do are already very established in their views.
Second, we will be distinctively British.
Third, we will work in partnership with business.
Fourth, we will re energise communities and spread economic power.
And fifth, we will refocus our investment on boosting productivity.
SKS's great principles.
The only meaningful political principles are ones whose denial or opposite are also meaningful. To govern is to choose. To govern well is to choose rightly. Do these principles make any choices at all?
And that is how it should be: scientists offer advice (often contradictory), other stakeholders offer advice, and it has to be our political leaders who make the final decision. My experience of being in the room… or rather in the Zoom meetings… was precisely that. This myth that the doommongerers forced the Govt is conspiracy theory nonsense.
However when are twitter going to really crack down on spoof account ripping off logos etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36569675
Fair point, but some SAGE committee people used the wall to wall covid media coverage to further their own ends.
Could the government have insisted on a media blackout from SAGE people and insist all briefings were initially private?
More generally, every lockdown was introduced later that the scientific advice. Advice was to introduce earlier, and then you can expect to come out of lockdown sooner.
“The only good thing to come out of Britain is oysters” - Pliny
Namibia’s are next best. Then Sydney Rocks
The oysters in Mauritius are the worst
How long do MPs give Truss? Imagine in a years time, when the Labour lead looks bigger and everything else bleak as a result of Truss policy implementation. Presumably it is easier to remove her with such limited parliamentary support
Public support for restrictions was also the result of Rishi Sunak's lovely furlough panacea, which made all the problems go away.
Until now....
If they change handle there might well be a good reason. There are a decent number of people on here who provide valuable insight but prefer not to be publicly known / lineage of their posting handles being dragged up e.g. We have had people whose employer has said to them about posting on here.
The number of people who actually did stuff, in my office soared. I believe that this actually pays for itself for Prudential by reducing the number of claims.
A lot of people lost fat, if not weight. The numbers vary from individual to individual, but for some people getting your body into “build muscle” mode from “store energy in the time of plenty” mode can take a while.
https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1551504230183309313
Russia is withdrawing 2S7 howitzers from storage at the 94th arsenal located in the city of Omsk. In early April, 170 2S7s were visible in GE imagery. In Planet imagery of June 2, 135 were visible. In the last available images, dated July 18, 110 howitzers were still stored.
Stored outdoors for decades, where winter temperatures are around -25C; summer +25.
Possible result (though this could simply be overuse before replacing the barrel) ?
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1551294834027249664
A Russian 2S7(M) Pion/Malka 203mm self-propelled howitzer suffered a catastrophic barrel failure - likely due to serious wear.
https://twitter.com/murraychalmers/status/1551242814029176833?s=20&t=ywn_Aae4KRNnWf_Tej63mw
On the pic that was posted on a previous thread of an off centre bore in an alleged Russian weapons (might have been a 73mm off an APC?) - it looked as is it was a section cut from the middle of the barrel, not the end. Maybe the cutting tool shaft banana’d due to being pushed too hard?
Is possibly the most poignantly forlorn sentence ever posted on PB. It is also a glimpse of the parochial tedium that would be www.scottishpoliticalbetting.com if ever Sindy won. I bet the PB Nats would be back on PB within hours. Probably moaning about England