The problem with all this is "help the poorest". But that's largely irrelevant. If you are a single person in a triple glazed flat with super insulation and on UC, rather than a family of five in a huge Victorian house, then you make a profit on a flat fee. A simple %age off bills would be the easiest and most equitable way to solve this. And would keep the incentive to save energy too.
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
So does Italy and there Brothers of Italy still leads most of the latest polls
If Brothers of Italy do come first next month in votes and seats in the Italian general election, it will be the first time a far right party has won a democratic general election in Western Europe since before the 2nd world war
Bizarre and depressing. Why don't these people feeling screwed by global capitalism vote Left? Why do they get obsessed with identity instead? Makes me want to get hold of every single one of them and give them a good shake.
Yes, let's vote for the Left, which wants to flood our countries with immigrants, which wants to chop the tits off our daughters, which tells us we are all racist just because we are white, which tells us we are intrinsically evil, which constantly lies about the reality of crime, and which despises the countries we love, and wants us all to be run by, fuck knows, Muslims, anyone, anyone but us, the evil white people?
Yes, it is truly amazing that people are still resistant to voting for the Left in Europe and America
Rancid old racist or the Fox defence of "obviously just satirical hyperbole"?
Hmm ... Let's sleep on it.
Or, you're an idiot and a snob, and way less intelligent than your self-congratulory ascent from the working class north indicates. Consider that
I've just been looking in to what happened to flight MH370. There are some new documentaries on youtube in Australia, including one done by Sky. Essentially, Tony Abbot revealed in 2020 that he was told by the Malaysians that they thought it was 'murder / suicide', and the implication is that the captain was responsible. Then, there are some new theories about the 'pings', there is a suggestion that the plane was actually in a holding pattern for a while after it went off the radar, the implied hypothesis is that the captain was in negotiations with the authorities about something. One odd thing, is that there is an Australian author who has written a book about the case, Ean Higgins. He has just gone 'missing'. There are assurances in the documentary that there are no suspicious circumstances, but there are no obituaries or appeals/inquests going on.
The problem with all this is "help the poorest". But that's largely irrelevant. If you are a single person in a triple glazed flat with super insulation and on UC, rather than a family of five in a huge Victorian house, then you make a profit on a flat fee. A simple %age off bills would be the easiest and most equitable way to solve this. And would keep the incentive to save energy too.
The problem with all this is "help the poorest". But that's largely irrelevant. If you are a single person in a triple glazed flat with super insulation and on UC, rather than a family of five in a huge Victorian house, then you make a profit on a flat fee. A simple %age off bills would be the easiest and most equitable way to solve this. And would keep the incentive to save energy too.
A key aspect too is business. Esoecially small businesses. They have no cap and energy companies will fuck them royally if they lose out on households. Labours plan as it stands wont wash, it is also or will be once picked apart, politically toxic.. Of course there may be more to come but i am not holding my breath.
Based on tonight’s intervention from labour, some kind of temporary/permanent energy price cap is now, definitely in play.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up getting completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
The problem with all this is "help the poorest". But that's largely irrelevant. If you are a single person in a triple glazed flat with super insulation and on UC, rather than a family of five in a huge Victorian house, then you make a profit on a flat fee. A simple %age off bills would be the easiest and most equitable way to solve this. And would keep the incentive to save energy too.
A key aspect too is business. Esoecially small businesses. They have no cap and energy companies will fuck them royally if they lose out on households. Labours plan as it stands wont wash, it is also or will be once picked apart, politically toxic.. Of course there may be more to come but i am not holding my breath.
But there aren't any good answers. What is the alternative? We haven't heard it.
Based on tonight’s intervention from labour, some kind of temporary/permanent energy price cap is now, definitely in play.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up being completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
I would recommend not taking one regardless, energy companies are hedging against even higher prices and their fixed quotes are appalling and a joke. Unless you get one with no exit penalty (good luck!)
Based on tonight’s intervention from labour, some kind of temporary/permanent energy price cap is now, definitely in play.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up getting completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
The problem with all this is "help the poorest". But that's largely irrelevant. If you are a single person in a triple glazed flat with super insulation and on UC, rather than a family of five in a huge Victorian house, then you make a profit on a flat fee. A simple %age off bills would be the easiest and most equitable way to solve this. And would keep the incentive to save energy too.
A key aspect too is business. Esoecially small businesses. They have no cap and energy companies will fuck them royally if they lose out on households. Labours plan as it stands wont wash, it is also or will be once picked apart, politically toxic.. Of course there may be more to come but i am not holding my breath.
But there aren't any good answers. What is the alternative? We haven't heard it.
It will require something transformative imo certainly in the medium and long term i dont know what though, but it should involve UKGov controlling the means of production and wholesale of as much % of our energy needs as possible. In the short term some sort of furlough style solution tailored to energy bills probably.
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
- “What is devomax? What currently reserved powers would be devolved?”
Your lack of answer did not go unnoticed.
It is not for me to answer, it is a PM Starmer and Gordon Brown who would implement it
Gordon Brown?!? When did he become leader of the Labour Party again?
Starmer has made clear as PM he would put Gordon Brown in charge of a programme of further devolution
One for the PB Tories and Stuart.
" Dumb and Dumber"
Just going through the list of stuff that could get devolved while retaining a sensible Union (aka devomax), I reckon:
Universal Credit (etc) Illegal drugs Betting (eeek) Experimenting on animals Possibly some more energy stuff? tricky Equalities Post All income taxes (though income tax is largely devolved now)
That's it really. Anything further would be unworkable, imo.
I assume if income tax is devolved and they keep all they raise then there will be no capital transfer from the rest of the country and they will be getting a bill for their share of defence and debt servicing etc
You're forgetting NI, VAT, road tax, petrol tax ...
Indeed - that's why I specified income taxes (I include NI in that, given there is no actual link to the state pension). I think opening it up to other taxes would be unworkable.
@Pagan2, I won't bore you with the complex interactions of income tax revenue in Scotland and the block grant from the UK Gov, but that's basically what happens already. Though, of course, Scotland enjoys higher spend per capita compared with elsewhere.
Correction....its what scots nationalists claim happen already while the non nationalists claim they are wrong. We would soon find out which is the correct view however but its still worth making the point up front that if the scots get to keep and spend all tax generated in scotland that there will not be a single penny transferred from the rest of the UK.
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
- “What is devomax? What currently reserved powers would be devolved?”
Your lack of answer did not go unnoticed.
It is not for me to answer, it is a PM Starmer and Gordon Brown who would implement it
Gordon Brown?!? When did he become leader of the Labour Party again?
Starmer has made clear as PM he would put Gordon Brown in charge of a programme of further devolution
One for the PB Tories and Stuart.
" Dumb and Dumber"
Just going through the list of stuff that could get devolved while retaining a sensible Union (aka devomax), I reckon:
Universal Credit (etc) Illegal drugs Betting (eeek) Experimenting on animals Possibly some more energy stuff? tricky Equalities Post All income taxes (though income tax is largely devolved now)
That's it really. Anything further would be unworkable, imo.
I assume if income tax is devolved and they keep all they raise then there will be no capital transfer from the rest of the country and they will be getting a bill for their share of defence and debt servicing etc
You're forgetting NI, VAT, road tax, petrol tax ...
Indeed - that's why I specified income taxes (I include NI in that, given there is no actual link to the state pension). I think opening it up to other taxes would be unworkable.
@Pagan2, I won't bore you with the complex interactions of income tax revenue in Scotland and the block grant from the UK Gov, but that's basically what happens already. Though, of course, Scotland enjoys higher spend per capita compared with elsewhere.
Correction....its what scots nationalists claim happen already while the non nationalists claim they are wrong. We would soon find out which is the correct view however but its still worth making the point up front that if the scots get to keep and spend all tax generated in scotland that there will not be a single penny transferred from the rest of the UK.
Errr, it's a simple fact that there is a Block Grant, Barnett Consequentials, Scottish Income Tax revenue, and a block grant adjustment that all contribute to the Scottish Government's budget.
Your second point is weird. In this devomax arrangement, I would expect that some tax revenue would end up at Whitehall to pay for Defence etc. And another transfer, in the other direction, to take account of regional inequality and the general additional costs of running Scotland (ferries etc) (this, netted off against the Defence transfer, is what people call the "Union dividend" at the mo).
In any case, I suggested only all income taxes, not all taxes, would be devolved in my proposal.
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
So does Italy and there Brothers of Italy still leads most of the latest polls
If Brothers of Italy do come first next month in votes and seats in the Italian general election, it will be the first time a far right party has won a democratic general election in Western Europe since before the 2nd world war
Bizarre and depressing. Why don't these people feeling screwed by global capitalism vote Left? Why do they get obsessed with identity instead? Makes me want to get hold of every single one of them and give them a good shake.
Yes, let's vote for the Left, which wants to flood our countries with immigrants, which wants to chop the tits off our daughters, which tells us we are all racist just because we are white, which tells us we are intrinsically evil, which constantly lies about the reality of crime, and which despises the countries we love, and wants us all to be run by, fuck knows, Muslims, anyone, anyone but us, the evil white people?
Yes, it is truly amazing that people are still resistant to voting for the Left in Europe and America
Rancid old racist or the Fox defence of "obviously just satirical hyperbole"?
Hmm ... Let's sleep on it.
Or, you're an idiot and a snob, and way less intelligent than your self-congratulory ascent from the working class north indicates. Consider that
Hmmmm, again when losing the argument you claim the person is less intelligent than you rather than sticking to the argument and now a new personal attack claiming the person is effeminate and then resorting to calling him her/she. A rather unpleasant attempt to undermine the other person, particularly one who is engaging in logical debate.
Also in the last 24 hours you have called a poster from the right a lefty Marxist and another poster a snowflake who clearly isn't and coming from someone who shows all the characteristics of snowflakery in nearly every post. Snowflakes aren't just on the left you know.
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
So does Italy and there Brothers of Italy still leads most of the latest polls
If Brothers of Italy do come first next month in votes and seats in the Italian general election, it will be the first time a far right party has won a democratic general election in Western Europe since before the 2nd world war
Bizarre and depressing. Why don't these people feeling screwed by global capitalism vote Left? Why do they get obsessed with identity instead? Makes me want to get hold of every single one of them and give them a good shake.
Yes, let's vote for the Left, which wants to flood our countries with immigrants, which wants to chop the tits off our daughters, which tells us we are all racist just because we are white, which tells us we are intrinsically evil, which constantly lies about the reality of crime, and which despises the countries we love, and wants us all to be run by, fuck knows, Muslims, anyone, anyone but us, the evil white people?
Yes, it is truly amazing that people are still resistant to voting for the Left in Europe and America
Rancid old racist or the Fox defence of "obviously just satirical hyperbole"?
Hmm ... Let's sleep on it.
Or, you're an idiot and a snob, and way less intelligent than your self-congratulory ascent from the working class north indicates. Consider that
Hmmmm, again when losing the argument you claim the person is less intelligent than you rather than sticking to the argument and now a new personal attack claiming the person is effeminate and then resorting to calling him her/she. A rather unpleasant attempt to undermine the other person, particularly one who is engaging in logical debate.
Also in the last 24 hours you have called a poster from the right a lefty Marxist and another poster a snowflake who clearly isn't and coming from someone who shows all the characteristics of snowflakery in nearly every post. Snowflakes aren't just on the left you know.
Get back to me when you can write a vaguely coherent paragraph, at least
'A prominent Russian official and longtime lieutenant to Russian President Vladimir Putin implied that Moscow could authorize the sabotage of European nuclear power plants.
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
So does Italy and there Brothers of Italy still leads most of the latest polls
If Brothers of Italy do come first next month in votes and seats in the Italian general election, it will be the first time a far right party has won a democratic general election in Western Europe since before the 2nd world war
Bizarre and depressing. Why don't these people feeling screwed by global capitalism vote Left? Why do they get obsessed with identity instead? Makes me want to get hold of every single one of them and give them a good shake.
Yes, let's vote for the Left, which wants to flood our countries with immigrants, which wants to chop the tits off our daughters, which tells us we are all racist just because we are white, which tells us we are intrinsically evil, which constantly lies about the reality of crime, and which despises the countries we love, and wants us all to be run by, fuck knows, Muslims, anyone, anyone but us, the evil white people?
Yes, it is truly amazing that people are still resistant to voting for the Left in Europe and America
Rancid old racist or the Fox defence of "obviously just satirical hyperbole"?
Hmm ... Let's sleep on it.
Or, you're an idiot and a snob, and way less intelligent than your self-congratulory ascent from the working class north indicates. Consider that
Hmmmm, again when losing the argument you claim the person is less intelligent than you rather than sticking to the argument and now a new personal attack claiming the person is effeminate and then resorting to calling him her/she. A rather unpleasant attempt to undermine the other person, particularly one who is engaging in logical debate.
Also in the last 24 hours you have called a poster from the right a lefty Marxist and another poster a snowflake who clearly isn't and coming from someone who shows all the characteristics of snowflakery in nearly every post. Snowflakes aren't just on the left you know.
Get back to me when you can write a vaguely coherent paragraph, at least
Yeah, it's just like asking a flint-knapper about UAPs!
Maybe this has been posted already but it is quite incredible. The first question is about Rushdie. Both Hitchens brothers are in on the argument. Shirley Williams makes a bit of a mess of things and then...
One young Boris Johnson tries to turn the whole event into a joke where everyone is laughing with him at how badly written the book is. He wipes out the entire previous very tense few minutes of earnest debate.
In one two minutes of Johnson speaking a historian in the future will grasp what a disaster for this country and for his party he was.
Nothing is serious. Nothing matters but me.
Roland Smith 🇺🇦 @rolandmcs Christopher Hitchens on a Question Time panel with idiots (Boris Johnson) and the mealy-mouthed..... and the first question asked is about Salman Rushdie. Watch what happens next.
No surprise. They are falling over themselves to vote for Continuity Johnson and they will all be very angry when the MPs ditch her next summer in order to try and save the next GE.
'A prominent Russian official and longtime lieutenant to Russian President Vladimir Putin implied that Moscow could authorize the sabotage of European nuclear power plants.
Based on tonight’s intervention from labour, some kind of temporary/permanent energy price cap is now, definitely in play.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up getting completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
So does Italy and there Brothers of Italy still leads most of the latest polls
If Brothers of Italy do come first next month in votes and seats in the Italian general election, it will be the first time a far right party has won a democratic general election in Western Europe since before the 2nd world war
Bizarre and depressing. Why don't these people feeling screwed by global capitalism vote Left? Why do they get obsessed with identity instead? Makes me want to get hold of every single one of them and give them a good shake.
Yes, let's vote for the Left, which wants to flood our countries with immigrants, which wants to chop the tits off our daughters, which tells us we are all racist just because we are white, which tells us we are intrinsically evil, which constantly lies about the reality of crime, and which despises the countries we love, and wants us all to be run by, fuck knows, Muslims, anyone, anyone but us, the evil white people?
Yes, it is truly amazing that people are still resistant to voting for the Left in Europe and America
Rancid old racist or the Fox defence of "obviously just satirical hyperbole"?
Hmm ... Let's sleep on it.
Or, you're an idiot and a snob, and way less intelligent than your self-congratulory ascent from the working class north indicates. Consider that
Hmmmm, again when losing the argument you claim the person is less intelligent than you rather than sticking to the argument and now a new personal attack claiming the person is effeminate and then resorting to calling him her/she. A rather unpleasant attempt to undermine the other person, particularly one who is engaging in logical debate.
Also in the last 24 hours you have called a poster from the right a lefty Marxist and another poster a snowflake who clearly isn't and coming from someone who shows all the characteristics of snowflakery in nearly every post. Snowflakes aren't just on the left you know.
Get back to me when you can write a vaguely coherent paragraph, at least
A reply that rather proves the point. Rather than engage you just insult. You knew exactly what I meant, but appear unable to engage, as you do when losing the argument, usually with @Kinabalu.
Scotland is not self-sufficient in food. Saying it is is a typical SNP head's shoulder-chippy statement, of a piece with "We don't need no foreigners to help us". It could become self-sufficient in food, though, as could Britain as a whole, and easily, if people stopped eating dead animal.
I thought all those windmills that litter the UK's coast were supposed to provide cheaper energy? It does not seem to be working out that way.
Tidal. We are an island. Tidal ffs, invest to the max in tidal power
I completely agree with you, but for some reason no govt will touch tidal.
Its bizarre how underutilised it has been. More Home grown power we could be leveraging to protect against world price surges. Prorectionism. Its suddenly sexy again.
Same with food. Though I fear it is too late in view of the latest news. Periodically, and only months ago, on here, I was being relentlessly lectured how silly I was for being worried about UK food security, when it was much better and much more consonant with free market liberalism to import all our food from Australia etc and fuck the farmers.
Surely you should be worried about "Scottish food security". Cut off from rUK you will be eating oats, tatties, soil, thistles and "neeps and pebbles", a warming and traditional dish that has filled the stomach of weirdly stunted Unst kids for centuries
There's not a lot wrong with a diet based on porridge, potatoes, swedes, herring and mutton, bread, and garden vegetables.
The point does need t be made that Scotland is overall selfsufficient in food, unlike rUK.
But that's only because no one wants to live in the turgid, sordid, midgey toilet that is Scotland (especially under the Nats). It's like saying "Greenland is self sufficient in food", Well, er, yeah, because you have 2 million tons of salmon but you have a population of 7,000 and they are all drunk because of the ghastly climate and permanent, suicidal gloom. And the shit football
It's like saying "in Saudi Arabia petrol is 20p a gallon"! Come and live here! Driving is cheap! We cut off hands!
Ghastly climate? It's been a very pleasant 23 degC today, and you aree always on about the Ballard-like transformation of Islington.
"Scotland's as good as Islington any day of the week".
We wouldn't have to give up meat to do that. And there would be no point in doing so if we did. It would have a very negative impact on health.
Vegetarians live on average 8 years longer than flesheaters: 9 years for men, 6 years for women.
Not chomping on flesh correlates too with better chances with Covid-19. That has even made the pages of the BMJ.
Sure, there are other factors. People sensible with their diet are often sensible in other ways too.
Maybe this has been posted already but it is quite incredible. The first question is about Rushdie. Both Hitchens brothers are in on the argument. Shirley Williams makes a bit of a mess of things and then...
One young Boris Johnson tries to turn the whole event into a joke where everyone is laughing with him at how badly written the book is. He wipes out the entire previous very tense few minutes of earnest debate.
In one two minutes of Johnson speaking a historian in the future will grasp what a disaster for this country and for his party he was.
Nothing is serious. Nothing matters but me.
Roland Smith 🇺🇦 @rolandmcs Christopher Hitchens on a Question Time panel with idiots (Boris Johnson) and the mealy-mouthed..... and the first question asked is about Salman Rushdie. Watch what happens next.
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
- “What is devomax? What currently reserved powers would be devolved?”
Your lack of answer did not go unnoticed.
It is not for me to answer, it is a PM Starmer and Gordon Brown who would implement it
Gordon Brown?!? When did he become leader of the Labour Party again?
Starmer has made clear as PM he would put Gordon Brown in charge of a programme of further devolution
One for the PB Tories and Stuart.
" Dumb and Dumber"
Just going through the list of stuff that could get devolved while retaining a sensible Union (aka devomax), I reckon:
Universal Credit (etc) Illegal drugs Betting (eeek) Experimenting on animals Possibly some more energy stuff? tricky Equalities Post All income taxes (though income tax is largely devolved now)
That's it really. Anything further would be unworkable, imo.
I assume if income tax is devolved and they keep all they raise then there will be no capital transfer from the rest of the country and they will be getting a bill for their share of defence and debt servicing etc
You see, this is why Devomax will never happen. It opens up a hornet’s nest, both north and south of the border.
Scots will not be happy being presented with a bill for eg Trident nuclear weapons, which they don’t want. It’s like a slap in the face.
The English will demand an end to the Barnett Formula, a key bastion holding the Union together. They will also increasingly wonder why they are the only nation denied a legislature and a government?
One thing is rock-solid guaranteed to not be devolved, and that is tax revenues from Scotland’s sector of the North Sea and North Atlantic. Without that it can never be Devomax.
No, Brown’s task is simply another marketing ploy: to tell Scots they’re getting Devomax while keeping the status quo.
Scotland is not self-sufficient in food. Saying it is is a typical SNP head's shoulder-chippy statement, of a piece with "We don't need no foreigners to help us". It could become self-sufficient in food, though, as could Britain as a whole, and easily, if people stopped eating dead animal.
I thought all those windmills that litter the UK's coast were supposed to provide cheaper energy? It does not seem to be working out that way.
Tidal. We are an island. Tidal ffs, invest to the max in tidal power
I completely agree with you, but for some reason no govt will touch tidal.
Its bizarre how underutilised it has been. More Home grown power we could be leveraging to protect against world price surges. Prorectionism. Its suddenly sexy again.
Same with food. Though I fear it is too late in view of the latest news. Periodically, and only months ago, on here, I was being relentlessly lectured how silly I was for being worried about UK food security, when it was much better and much more consonant with free market liberalism to import all our food from Australia etc and fuck the farmers.
Surely you should be worried about "Scottish food security". Cut off from rUK you will be eating oats, tatties, soil, thistles and "neeps and pebbles", a warming and traditional dish that has filled the stomach of weirdly stunted Unst kids for centuries
There's not a lot wrong with a diet based on porridge, potatoes, swedes, herring and mutton, bread, and garden vegetables.
The point does need t be made that Scotland is overall selfsufficient in food, unlike rUK.
But that's only because no one wants to live in the turgid, sordid, midgey toilet that is Scotland (especially under the Nats). It's like saying "Greenland is self sufficient in food", Well, er, yeah, because you have 2 million tons of salmon but you have a population of 7,000 and they are all drunk because of the ghastly climate and permanent, suicidal gloom. And the shit football
It's like saying "in Saudi Arabia petrol is 20p a gallon"! Come and live here! Driving is cheap! We cut off hands!
Ghastly climate? It's been a very pleasant 23 degC today, and you aree always on about the Ballard-like transformation of Islington.
"Scotland's as good as Islington any day of the week".
We wouldn't have to give up meat to do that. And there would be no point in doing so if we did. It would have a very negative impact on health.
Vegetarians live on average 8 years longer than flesheaters: 9 years for men, 6 years for women.
Not chomping on flesh correlates too with better chances with Covid-19. That has even made the pages of the BMJ.
Sure, there are other factors. People sensible with their diet are often sensible in other ways too.
I suspect the main correlation is with wealth/income. The healthiest people tend to be the wealthiest.
I doubt veganism/vegetarianism for those in the lowest decile of income/wealth would improve their life expectancy by that much. Especially if they just substitute processed meaty junk food for the processed vegetarian/vegan junk food that’s now flooding supermarkets/fast food menus.
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
- “What is devomax? What currently reserved powers would be devolved?”
Your lack of answer did not go unnoticed.
It is not for me to answer, it is a PM Starmer and Gordon Brown who would implement it
Gordon Brown?!? When did he become leader of the Labour Party again?
Starmer has made clear as PM he would put Gordon Brown in charge of a programme of further devolution
One for the PB Tories and Stuart.
" Dumb and Dumber"
Just going through the list of stuff that could get devolved while retaining a sensible Union (aka devomax), I reckon:
Universal Credit (etc) Illegal drugs Betting (eeek) Experimenting on animals Possibly some more energy stuff? tricky Equalities Post All income taxes (though income tax is largely devolved now)
That's it really. Anything further would be unworkable, imo.
I assume if income tax is devolved and they keep all they raise then there will be no capital transfer from the rest of the country and they will be getting a bill for their share of defence and debt servicing etc
You're forgetting NI, VAT, road tax, petrol tax ...
Based on tonight’s intervention from labour, some kind of temporary/permanent energy price cap is now, definitely in play.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up being completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
I would recommend not taking one regardless, energy companies are hedging against even higher prices and their fixed quotes are appalling and a joke. Unless you get one with no exit penalty (good luck!)
All true. But I hope lots do fix, so that when wholesale prices fall those on them can generate enough profit that the firms offer the rest of us rock bottom prices.
Scotland is not self-sufficient in food. Saying it is is a typical SNP head's shoulder-chippy statement, of a piece with "We don't need no foreigners to help us". It could become self-sufficient in food, though, as could Britain as a whole, and easily, if people stopped eating dead animal.
I thought all those windmills that litter the UK's coast were supposed to provide cheaper energy? It does not seem to be working out that way.
Tidal. We are an island. Tidal ffs, invest to the max in tidal power
I completely agree with you, but for some reason no govt will touch tidal.
Its bizarre how underutilised it has been. More Home grown power we could be leveraging to protect against world price surges. Prorectionism. Its suddenly sexy again.
Same with food. Though I fear it is too late in view of the latest news. Periodically, and only months ago, on here, I was being relentlessly lectured how silly I was for being worried about UK food security, when it was much better and much more consonant with free market liberalism to import all our food from Australia etc and fuck the farmers.
Surely you should be worried about "Scottish food security". Cut off from rUK you will be eating oats, tatties, soil, thistles and "neeps and pebbles", a warming and traditional dish that has filled the stomach of weirdly stunted Unst kids for centuries
There's not a lot wrong with a diet based on porridge, potatoes, swedes, herring and mutton, bread, and garden vegetables.
The point does need t be made that Scotland is overall selfsufficient in food, unlike rUK.
But that's only because no one wants to live in the turgid, sordid, midgey toilet that is Scotland (especially under the Nats). It's like saying "Greenland is self sufficient in food", Well, er, yeah, because you have 2 million tons of salmon but you have a population of 7,000 and they are all drunk because of the ghastly climate and permanent, suicidal gloom. And the shit football
It's like saying "in Saudi Arabia petrol is 20p a gallon"! Come and live here! Driving is cheap! We cut off hands!
Ghastly climate? It's been a very pleasant 23 degC today, and you aree always on about the Ballard-like transformation of Islington.
"Scotland's as good as Islington any day of the week".
We wouldn't have to give up meat to do that. And there would be no point in doing so if we did. It would have a very negative impact on health.
Vegetarians live on average 8 years longer than flesheaters: 9 years for men, 6 years for women.
Not chomping on flesh correlates too with better chances with Covid-19. That has even made the pages of the BMJ.
Sure, there are other factors. People sensible with their diet are often sensible in other ways too.
Nine years more life. But also nine years without bacon. Not worth it.
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
Chances of the Union reaching 4 centuries?
Yes 8/1 No 1/9
Pretty good odds since the Union of the Crowns went past 400 years nearly 20 years ago.
A misnomer. The crowns were not united. It was a personal union, with the monarchs ruling three kingdoms: England, Ireland and Scotland (and other bits n bobs). The legislatures and privy councils (governments) remained separate.
LOL. The controlling power of all 3 countries was vested in the same individual. As they have been for the last 420 years. Given the power of the Monarch was so much greater then (pre Civil war) and Parliament so much weaker (especially in Scotland) I would call that a Union.
I must have misread that bit in history class about Charles II confirming and extending the Navigation Acts to the detriment of Scotland, forcing it eventually into financing all of the Darien Scheme.
'A prominent Russian official and longtime lieutenant to Russian President Vladimir Putin implied that Moscow could authorize the sabotage of European nuclear power plants.
Somtimes I think "Czar" Putin doesn't want to be friends with us.
Perhaps he changed his mind after meeting those boys from Eton.
But joking aside...Medvedev is probably being quoted out of context. He was probably meaning to say don't say the Russians can't run the plant safely, and pointing out that while it's true there's a nonzero risk of an accident that's true at all nuke plants everywhere. He also seems to be saying that the Ukrainian line is not just that the Russians shelled the plant but that they shelled it by accident. I am not sure whether that is an accurate rendering of the Ukrainian position, although they are certainly saying the Russians shelled the plant. The Russian line is that it was the Ukrainians who shelled it. The idea that it was the Russians who did it should certainly come with one or more credible reasons why they might actually take over a nuclear plant and then shell it. Those who say "Russians is bad cos its like Hitler innit" are incapable of contributing usefully to a discussion of what's going on - either the physical conflict or the psychological warfare.
Agreed there are other possibilities and it's possible Medvedev's Telegram post aimed different messages at different markets. I doubt the Russian side gives much of a flying sh*t for what the mass market in Britain or the US under influence of the Daily Telegraph, BBC, NYT, etc. thinks about this war. Military, political, and business elites are quite another matter. Clearly they care what they think. In any case, all military strategists already know that nuclear power plants are sensitive places and they don't need to be informed on that matter by Mr Medvedev.
IIRC back in 1996 Alexander Lebed the "growling general" advocated (successfully) that the Russian side should sue for peace in Chechnya because Russian nuke installations couldn't be protected sufficiently well against Chechen attacks. He may possibly have been playing politics and of course war broke out again later, but I got the impression at the time that he was serious. He also spoke of nuclear material that had gone missing and of suitcase nukes.
No doubt that nuke plants especially (but not only) deep inside Russia are possible targets. So are nuke plants everywhere. Ditto North Sea oil rigs that nobody talks about. Both would play well for "spectaculars". It's an unsafe world.
But not (at risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom but there's a free £21 net profit for anyone who wants it - maybe I need to say ***betting post***) at Smarkets, where it's still
Based on tonight’s intervention from labour, some kind of temporary/permanent energy price cap is now, definitely in play.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up being completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
I would recommend not taking one regardless, energy companies are hedging against even higher prices and their fixed quotes are appalling and a joke. Unless you get one with no exit penalty (good luck!)
All true. But I hope lots do fix, so that when wholesale prices fall those on them can generate enough profit that the firms offer the rest of us rock bottom prices.
I’m not sure exactly how the industry works, but from what I’ve read, when a customer fixes, the supplier usually buys futures for approximately the amount they expect the customer to use over the term of the contract. The only retail energy companies selling a fix, then buying at spot are the chancers (who all went bust last year) and, perhaps the vertically integrated extractors/generators with a retail arm.
I don’t see any scenario where the energy companies offer “rock bottom prices,” bar a crash in the wholesale price, unfortunately.
Surely the biggest advantage of freezing energy bills rather than giving handouts to the public to pay for higher bills is that it keeps the inflation figure much lower, in turn:
1) Saving the Govt a huge amount of interest on index linked gilts
2) Saving the Govt a huge amount on future inflation linked benefit rises
3) Takes at least some pressure off demand for huge pay increases (both public and private) which would otherwise also increase inflation
It basically stops the spiral getting going in the first place.
Surely the biggest advantage of freezing energy bills rather than giving handouts to the public to pay for higher bills is that it keeps the inflation figure much lower, in turn:
1) Saving the Govt a huge amount of interest on index linked gilts
2) Saving the Govt a huge amount on future inflation linked benefit rises
3) Takes at least some pressure off demand for huge pay increases (both public and private) which would otherwise also increase inflation
It basically stops the spiral getting going in the first place.
If you freeze energy bills then there is no signal from the market about demand.
Now, maybe we are are so deep in shit that that doesn't matter but...
'A prominent Russian official and longtime lieutenant to Russian President Vladimir Putin implied that Moscow could authorize the sabotage of European nuclear power plants.
Somtimes I think "Czar" Putin doesn't want to be friends with us.
Perhaps he changed his mind after meeting those boys from Eton.
But joking aside...Medvedev is probably being quoted out of context. He was probably meaning to say don't say the Russians can't run the plant safely, and pointing out that while it's true there's a nonzero risk of an accident that's true at all nuke plants everywhere. He also seems to be saying that the Ukrainian line is not just that the Russians shelled the plant but that they shelled it by accident. I am not sure whether that is an accurate rendering of the Ukrainian position, although they are certainly saying the Russians shelled the plant. The Russian line is that it was the Ukrainians who shelled it. The idea that it was the Russians who did it should certainly come with one or more credible reasons why they might actually take over a nuclear plant and then shell it. Those who say "Russians is bad cos its like Hitler innit" are incapable of contributing usefully to a discussion of what's going on - either the physical conflict or the psychological warfare.
Agreed there are other possibilities and it's possible Medvedev's Telegram post aimed different messages at different markets. I doubt the Russian side gives much of a flying sh*t for what the mass market in Britain or the US under influence of the Daily Telegraph, BBC, NYT, etc. thinks about this war. Military, political, and business elites are quite another matter. Clearly they care what they think. In any case, all military strategists already know that nuclear power plants are sensitive places and they don't need to be informed on that matter by Mr Medvedev.
IIRC back in 1996 Alexander Lebed the "growling general" advocated (successfully) that the Russian side should sue for peace in Chechnya because Russian nuke installations couldn't be protected sufficiently well against Chechen attacks. He may possibly have been playing politics and of course war broke out again later, but I got the impression at the time that he was serious. He also spoke of nuclear material that had gone missing and of suitcase nukes.
No doubt that nuke plants especially (but not only) deep inside Russia are possible targets. So are nuke plants everywhere. Ditto North Sea oil rigs that nobody talks about. Both would play well for "spectaculars". It's an unsafe world.
Medvedev was quite liked for a while by european leaders for the period around 2008-2012 when he was 'President'. I am not claiming any sort of position as Kremlinologist, but circumstantially it does seem to me to be likely that he is still a threat to Putin, and a possible candidate as successor, which may be useful context for his increasingly unhinged and deranged commentary on the war in Ukraine.
But not (at risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom but there's a free £21 net profit for anyone who wants it - maybe I need to say ***betting post***) at Smarkets, where it's still
1.11 Liz Truss 9.6 Rishi Sunak
With three weeks to go, the markets are still thin and not interesting to the big-hitting punters who would automate taking these arbs.
The heat is very bad here. I've got the doors open on to the balcony... and its the same temperature outside as it is inside. Same muggy heat. Just tried to use the fan and it helps a bit... but this is the type of weather that requires air conditioning, and it has been so for several weeks.
The heat is very bad here. I've got the doors open on to the balcony... and its the same temperature outside as it is inside. Same muggy heat. Just tried to use the fan and it helps a bit... but this is the type of weather that requires air conditioning, and it has been so for several weeks.
Shame air conditioning is a nightmare for your electricity bill.
We have a heat pump that we can switch to cooling mode when we have “tropical nights” (nighttime temperature does not sink under 20 C). Not as effective as proper A/C, but better than a fan, cheaper, and the system is installed in the house anyway.
Funnily enough, we’ve had fewer tropical nights this year than we usually have. Very, very pleasant weather here. And the gardens and countryside are very lush as we’ve had some good rain earlier in the summer.
The problem isn't the Tory party, its the voters. People want contradictory things but refuse to accept there is a contradiction. A series of events have empowered them to believe their genuine ignorance on a subject holds the same weight as actual knowledge and experience. They aren't wrong, the experts are wrong.
There is a way through though - find us a new Blair or Thatcher, someone who does know what they are talking about and has political umph. People said "that is Boris" but as all but the remaining holdouts now accept Boris stood for nothing, with no great policies delivered and settled in his time.
Ummm, BoZo was the politician more than any other in my lifetime that told voters they could have contradictory things. Denied the contradictions. That experts were to be derided.
He was the problem
The fact his opponents failed to make their case shows how poor they were
Not entirely.
If you are in a debate with someone shameless and dishonest enough, it can be really hard to persuade an audience.
It tends to go this;
BORIS-ALIKE Something involving cake and eat it
RORY-ALIKE (because he at least tried) That's not possible- once you have eaten your cake, it's gone...
BORIS-ALIKE There you go, with your doomy gloomy negativity. Remember we are Great Britain! We are being held back by your fears... (Continues ad nauseum.)
Boris style cakeism is a really attractive prospectus. It's awfully hard to argue against, because deep down we want it to be true, and want to believe that there's some meanie stopping it being true for us. That's been the case since the apple/snake/Eve fiasco in Genesis.
It would have been better for the UK had someone successfully argued us out of Borisism, but I'm not convinced that was possible.
It would have been better for the Conservatives and the UK to have not fallen for Borisism, but that required human nature to be something it isn't.
The culpability for (gestures round) all of this belongs with the clique who proposed it, who lied to the public about it, who smeared and deposed those who questioned it.
Not particularly with those who fell for it, and certainly not with those who did their best to argue against it.
Unless you had a better plan to argue against Boris, in which case I'm all ears.
And unless he didn't vote for the Conservatives when Mr Johnson was their leader.
I want to make this clear
I supported Johnson on brexit, covid and Ukraine but he lost me from Paterson onwards
Starmer would have had our economy in lockdown forever if he could, and it is to Johnson's credit he opened the economy when he did
That's a very silly thing to write. Starmer wanted us "in lockdown forever"?
Profoundly stupid read of the situation that isn't worthy of yours usual sage analysis.
Forever is a stretch, but Starmer was ALWAYS on the side of more and longer restrictions.
I accept forever was one of my rather exaggerated comments but there is no doubt Starmer favoured a much stricter and longer lockdown and it was Johnson who made the correct decision and it has been proven as the right thing to do
It is rather hot and I apologise for my exaggeration
Boris caused longer lockdowns by always being slow to initiate a lockdown. Had we acted promptly, we would have better controlled infection rates and could’ve come out of lockdown sooner. It’s yet more short term thinking.
Oh what nonsense. Claimed by people who want to justify lockdowns. Taking away civil liberties as a precautionary measure is unacceptable and the virus would still be prevalent on our continent after any lockdown it wasn't a magic pill that would get rid of it.
What country in Europe successfully had a short, sharp lockdown that was rapidly ended and not repeated?
I can in hindsight point at a country and say we should have done that, Sweden. Can you name any country that had a rapid premature lockdown that worked, fixed things and meant coming out of lockdown sooner?
Following the Swedish model would have been utterly catastrophic. Look at their death rates compared to their immediate neighbours. Thousands of additional people died in Sweden who did not need to because of the route they chose. And that is in spite of the fact that far more people in Sweden work from home anyway so the effects of a lockdown would have been considerably less on their economy.
Many - if not all - European countries got their policies wrong in the pandemic in one way or another. Sweden is certainly no exception.
Thousands extra dying, almost all of whom would have died soon anyway, is better than stripping tens of millions of two years of civil liberties, trashing education and development for years that will have consequences for generations to come, spending hundreds of billions and creating NHS waiting lists for years to come.
The price we paid to keep people alive was not a price worth paying. There's more to life than a mortuary league table.
If the vulnerable wishes to shield that should be there prerogative but not at the price of trashing children's education etc
Bolded: incorrect, and pointed out to you repeatedly before.
Half of those in ICUs were under 60. A quarter were under 50.
Using averages of deaths is as irrelevant as using the average age of people locked down (which was over 40, so why are we worrying about childrens education when none of them are anywhere near 40. Which would be an absurd argument, but is just as true).
Over 13,000 children lost a parent to covid. Under your plan, that number would be several times higher. And we'd still have had a large (if not larger) economic impact.
In ICU doesn't mean dead.
Some extra casualties is still better than the alternative. Life is for living, even if some people die, we all die eventually.
Shutting down life in fear of death was not a price worth paying. Simply saying "more would die" isn't an argument winner against someone saying death is acceptable.
People go to ICU when there's a very significant chance that they could die without the assistance. Should there be no more capacity in ICU, no-one else could go to ICU. Those who would have survived with ICU assistance would therefore be dead.
Even "lesser" hospitalisation would see far more dead without hospital assistance. It's a key reason we have hospitals and healthcare in the first place.
Both ICUs and hospitals were maxed out and beyond maxed out. It was the hospital loadings and ICU loadings that governed the call for lockdowns.
Yes, it's true that everyone dies. We do consider it civilized to minimize avoidable deaths. We could close the deficit and cut taxes hugely at a stroke by abolishing all healthcare spending and pension spending, for example, on the grounds that yes, loads of people would die due to lack of healthcare and/or starve to death in old age, but hey - people die, right?
That is, to me, an absurd case to make, but not far off of your argument.
You're right its not far off the argument and make it less ridiculous and its not unreasonable either.
A budget should be available to the NHS for healthcare and the best available treatment based upon what is affordable - the NHS should not have a blank cheque.
If the NHS not having a blank cheque means more die and fewer receive pensions, then so be it. We can't afford to keep everyone alive forever, nor should we.
The NHS has never had a blank cheque and is never going to, so why this straw man argument?
Because Andy made the extreme argument of abolishing the budget entirely, so I retorted with the opposite extreme.
So is it fair to say we both agree that a budget is acceptable and we both agree that it is acceptable for avoidable deaths to occur if they're not viably avoidable within the budget.
Well if so, I consider the lockdown an unacceptable price to pay and if that means extra deaths then so be it, that's the price you pay for not having a blank cheque.
When it comes to what the NHS should spend money on, we have agreed cut-offs used by NICE in terms of £ per quality-adjusted life year gained. Have you or anyone else tried to systematise this argument you are making in terms of what was gained by lockdown in terms of QALYs saved and what it cost, turning all the costs of lockdown into a monetary equivalent amount?
Or are you just saying that lockdown was so awful that no number of QALYs saved would ever justify it?
The former would be interesting to read. The latter seems somewhat absolutist. Your insistence that lockdown should never be done again in any circumstance seems to either assign too much cost to lockdown or to suggest a lack of epidemiological imagination in terms of future pandemics.
I would absolutely love to see a QALY-style calculation, with the cost of lockdowns economically combined with as you suggest a monetary equivalent amount for the loss of liberty and disruption to education. I would assign a very high monetary equivalent 'cost' for education, liberty etc to be curtailed.
This is not my area of expertise but I fully expect that such a QALY calculation would categorically show that lockdown was not remotely "worth" it by pre-existing standards.
The problem isn't the Tory party, its the voters. People want contradictory things but refuse to accept there is a contradiction. A series of events have empowered them to believe their genuine ignorance on a subject holds the same weight as actual knowledge and experience. They aren't wrong, the experts are wrong.
There is a way through though - find us a new Blair or Thatcher, someone who does know what they are talking about and has political umph. People said "that is Boris" but as all but the remaining holdouts now accept Boris stood for nothing, with no great policies delivered and settled in his time.
Ummm, BoZo was the politician more than any other in my lifetime that told voters they could have contradictory things. Denied the contradictions. That experts were to be derided.
He was the problem
The fact his opponents failed to make their case shows how poor they were
Not entirely.
If you are in a debate with someone shameless and dishonest enough, it can be really hard to persuade an audience.
It tends to go this;
BORIS-ALIKE Something involving cake and eat it
RORY-ALIKE (because he at least tried) That's not possible- once you have eaten your cake, it's gone...
BORIS-ALIKE There you go, with your doomy gloomy negativity. Remember we are Great Britain! We are being held back by your fears... (Continues ad nauseum.)
Boris style cakeism is a really attractive prospectus. It's awfully hard to argue against, because deep down we want it to be true, and want to believe that there's some meanie stopping it being true for us. That's been the case since the apple/snake/Eve fiasco in Genesis.
It would have been better for the UK had someone successfully argued us out of Borisism, but I'm not convinced that was possible.
It would have been better for the Conservatives and the UK to have not fallen for Borisism, but that required human nature to be something it isn't.
The culpability for (gestures round) all of this belongs with the clique who proposed it, who lied to the public about it, who smeared and deposed those who questioned it.
Not particularly with those who fell for it, and certainly not with those who did their best to argue against it.
Unless you had a better plan to argue against Boris, in which case I'm all ears.
And unless he didn't vote for the Conservatives when Mr Johnson was their leader.
I want to make this clear
I supported Johnson on brexit, covid and Ukraine but he lost me from Paterson onwards
Starmer would have had our economy in lockdown forever if he could, and it is to Johnson's credit he opened the economy when he did
That's a very silly thing to write. Starmer wanted us "in lockdown forever"?
Profoundly stupid read of the situation that isn't worthy of yours usual sage analysis.
Forever is a stretch, but Starmer was ALWAYS on the side of more and longer restrictions.
I accept forever was one of my rather exaggerated comments but there is no doubt Starmer favoured a much stricter and longer lockdown and it was Johnson who made the correct decision and it has been proven as the right thing to do
It is rather hot and I apologise for my exaggeration
Boris caused longer lockdowns by always being slow to initiate a lockdown. Had we acted promptly, we would have better controlled infection rates and could’ve come out of lockdown sooner. It’s yet more short term thinking.
Oh what nonsense. Claimed by people who want to justify lockdowns. Taking away civil liberties as a precautionary measure is unacceptable and the virus would still be prevalent on our continent after any lockdown it wasn't a magic pill that would get rid of it.
What country in Europe successfully had a short, sharp lockdown that was rapidly ended and not repeated?
I can in hindsight point at a country and say we should have done that, Sweden. Can you name any country that had a rapid premature lockdown that worked, fixed things and meant coming out of lockdown sooner?
Following the Swedish model would have been utterly catastrophic. Look at their death rates compared to their immediate neighbours. Thousands of additional people died in Sweden who did not need to because of the route they chose. And that is in spite of the fact that far more people in Sweden work from home anyway so the effects of a lockdown would have been considerably less on their economy.
Many - if not all - European countries got their policies wrong in the pandemic in one way or another. Sweden is certainly no exception.
Thousands extra dying, almost all of whom would have died soon anyway, is better than stripping tens of millions of two years of civil liberties, trashing education and development for years that will have consequences for generations to come, spending hundreds of billions and creating NHS waiting lists for years to come.
The price we paid to keep people alive was not a price worth paying. There's more to life than a mortuary league table.
If the vulnerable wishes to shield that should be there prerogative but not at the price of trashing children's education etc
Bolded: incorrect, and pointed out to you repeatedly before.
Half of those in ICUs were under 60. A quarter were under 50.
Using averages of deaths is as irrelevant as using the average age of people locked down (which was over 40, so why are we worrying about childrens education when none of them are anywhere near 40. Which would be an absurd argument, but is just as true).
Over 13,000 children lost a parent to covid. Under your plan, that number would be several times higher. And we'd still have had a large (if not larger) economic impact.
In ICU doesn't mean dead.
Some extra casualties is still better than the alternative. Life is for living, even if some people die, we all die eventually.
Shutting down life in fear of death was not a price worth paying. Simply saying "more would die" isn't an argument winner against someone saying death is acceptable.
People go to ICU when there's a very significant chance that they could die without the assistance. Should there be no more capacity in ICU, no-one else could go to ICU. Those who would have survived with ICU assistance would therefore be dead.
Even "lesser" hospitalisation would see far more dead without hospital assistance. It's a key reason we have hospitals and healthcare in the first place.
Both ICUs and hospitals were maxed out and beyond maxed out. It was the hospital loadings and ICU loadings that governed the call for lockdowns.
Yes, it's true that everyone dies. We do consider it civilized to minimize avoidable deaths. We could close the deficit and cut taxes hugely at a stroke by abolishing all healthcare spending and pension spending, for example, on the grounds that yes, loads of people would die due to lack of healthcare and/or starve to death in old age, but hey - people die, right?
That is, to me, an absurd case to make, but not far off of your argument.
You're right its not far off the argument and make it less ridiculous and its not unreasonable either.
A budget should be available to the NHS for healthcare and the best available treatment based upon what is affordable - the NHS should not have a blank cheque.
If the NHS not having a blank cheque means more die and fewer receive pensions, then so be it. We can't afford to keep everyone alive forever, nor should we.
The NHS has never had a blank cheque and is never going to, so why this straw man argument?
Because Andy made the extreme argument of abolishing the budget entirely, so I retorted with the opposite extreme.
So is it fair to say we both agree that a budget is acceptable and we both agree that it is acceptable for avoidable deaths to occur if they're not viably avoidable within the budget.
Well if so, I consider the lockdown an unacceptable price to pay and if that means extra deaths then so be it, that's the price you pay for not having a blank cheque.
When it comes to what the NHS should spend money on, we have agreed cut-offs used by NICE in terms of £ per quality-adjusted life year gained. Have you or anyone else tried to systematise this argument you are making in terms of what was gained by lockdown in terms of QALYs saved and what it cost, turning all the costs of lockdown into a monetary equivalent amount?
Or are you just saying that lockdown was so awful that no number of QALYs saved would ever justify it?
The former would be interesting to read. The latter seems somewhat absolutist. Your insistence that lockdown should never be done again in any circumstance seems to either assign too much cost to lockdown or to suggest a lack of epidemiological imagination in terms of future pandemics.
I would absolutely love to see a QALY-style calculation, with the cost of lockdowns economically combined with as you suggest a monetary equivalent amount for the loss of liberty and disruption to education. I would assign a very high monetary equivalent 'cost' for education, liberty etc to be curtailed.
This is not my area of expertise but I fully expect that such a QALY calculation would categorically show that lockdown was not remotely "worth" it by pre-existing standards.
Comparing what happened with the range of what might have happened without lockdowns could be done in terms of QALYs without any reference to money, bearing in mind that being locked down reduces the quality of life measurably similarly to how it can be reduced due to physical weakness etc. - at least for most people. Personally I still ran 5km every day outside which was lawful throughout.
The problem isn't the Tory party, its the voters. People want contradictory things but refuse to accept there is a contradiction. A series of events have empowered them to believe their genuine ignorance on a subject holds the same weight as actual knowledge and experience. They aren't wrong, the experts are wrong.
There is a way through though - find us a new Blair or Thatcher, someone who does know what they are talking about and has political umph. People said "that is Boris" but as all but the remaining holdouts now accept Boris stood for nothing, with no great policies delivered and settled in his time.
Ummm, BoZo was the politician more than any other in my lifetime that told voters they could have contradictory things. Denied the contradictions. That experts were to be derided.
He was the problem
The fact his opponents failed to make their case shows how poor they were
Not entirely.
If you are in a debate with someone shameless and dishonest enough, it can be really hard to persuade an audience.
It tends to go this;
BORIS-ALIKE Something involving cake and eat it
RORY-ALIKE (because he at least tried) That's not possible- once you have eaten your cake, it's gone...
BORIS-ALIKE There you go, with your doomy gloomy negativity. Remember we are Great Britain! We are being held back by your fears... (Continues ad nauseum.)
Boris style cakeism is a really attractive prospectus. It's awfully hard to argue against, because deep down we want it to be true, and want to believe that there's some meanie stopping it being true for us. That's been the case since the apple/snake/Eve fiasco in Genesis.
It would have been better for the UK had someone successfully argued us out of Borisism, but I'm not convinced that was possible.
It would have been better for the Conservatives and the UK to have not fallen for Borisism, but that required human nature to be something it isn't.
The culpability for (gestures round) all of this belongs with the clique who proposed it, who lied to the public about it, who smeared and deposed those who questioned it.
Not particularly with those who fell for it, and certainly not with those who did their best to argue against it.
Unless you had a better plan to argue against Boris, in which case I'm all ears.
And unless he didn't vote for the Conservatives when Mr Johnson was their leader.
I want to make this clear
I supported Johnson on brexit, covid and Ukraine but he lost me from Paterson onwards
Starmer would have had our economy in lockdown forever if he could, and it is to Johnson's credit he opened the economy when he did
That's a very silly thing to write. Starmer wanted us "in lockdown forever"?
Profoundly stupid read of the situation that isn't worthy of yours usual sage analysis.
Forever is a stretch, but Starmer was ALWAYS on the side of more and longer restrictions.
I accept forever was one of my rather exaggerated comments but there is no doubt Starmer favoured a much stricter and longer lockdown and it was Johnson who made the correct decision and it has been proven as the right thing to do
It is rather hot and I apologise for my exaggeration
Boris caused longer lockdowns by always being slow to initiate a lockdown. Had we acted promptly, we would have better controlled infection rates and could’ve come out of lockdown sooner. It’s yet more short term thinking.
Oh what nonsense. Claimed by people who want to justify lockdowns. Taking away civil liberties as a precautionary measure is unacceptable and the virus would still be prevalent on our continent after any lockdown it wasn't a magic pill that would get rid of it.
What country in Europe successfully had a short, sharp lockdown that was rapidly ended and not repeated?
I can in hindsight point at a country and say we should have done that, Sweden. Can you name any country that had a rapid premature lockdown that worked, fixed things and meant coming out of lockdown sooner?
Following the Swedish model would have been utterly catastrophic. Look at their death rates compared to their immediate neighbours. Thousands of additional people died in Sweden who did not need to because of the route they chose. And that is in spite of the fact that far more people in Sweden work from home anyway so the effects of a lockdown would have been considerably less on their economy.
Many - if not all - European countries got their policies wrong in the pandemic in one way or another. Sweden is certainly no exception.
Thousands extra dying, almost all of whom would have died soon anyway, is better than stripping tens of millions of two years of civil liberties, trashing education and development for years that will have consequences for generations to come, spending hundreds of billions and creating NHS waiting lists for years to come.
The price we paid to keep people alive was not a price worth paying. There's more to life than a mortuary league table.
If the vulnerable wishes to shield that should be there prerogative but not at the price of trashing children's education etc
Bolded: incorrect, and pointed out to you repeatedly before.
Half of those in ICUs were under 60. A quarter were under 50.
Using averages of deaths is as irrelevant as using the average age of people locked down (which was over 40, so why are we worrying about childrens education when none of them are anywhere near 40. Which would be an absurd argument, but is just as true).
Over 13,000 children lost a parent to covid. Under your plan, that number would be several times higher. And we'd still have had a large (if not larger) economic impact.
In ICU doesn't mean dead.
Some extra casualties is still better than the alternative. Life is for living, even if some people die, we all die eventually.
Shutting down life in fear of death was not a price worth paying. Simply saying "more would die" isn't an argument winner against someone saying death is acceptable.
People go to ICU when there's a very significant chance that they could die without the assistance. Should there be no more capacity in ICU, no-one else could go to ICU. Those who would have survived with ICU assistance would therefore be dead.
Even "lesser" hospitalisation would see far more dead without hospital assistance. It's a key reason we have hospitals and healthcare in the first place.
Both ICUs and hospitals were maxed out and beyond maxed out. It was the hospital loadings and ICU loadings that governed the call for lockdowns.
Yes, it's true that everyone dies. We do consider it civilized to minimize avoidable deaths. We could close the deficit and cut taxes hugely at a stroke by abolishing all healthcare spending and pension spending, for example, on the grounds that yes, loads of people would die due to lack of healthcare and/or starve to death in old age, but hey - people die, right?
That is, to me, an absurd case to make, but not far off of your argument.
You're right its not far off the argument and make it less ridiculous and its not unreasonable either.
A budget should be available to the NHS for healthcare and the best available treatment based upon what is affordable - the NHS should not have a blank cheque.
If the NHS not having a blank cheque means more die and fewer receive pensions, then so be it. We can't afford to keep everyone alive forever, nor should we.
The NHS has never had a blank cheque and is never going to, so why this straw man argument?
Because Andy made the extreme argument of abolishing the budget entirely, so I retorted with the opposite extreme.
So is it fair to say we both agree that a budget is acceptable and we both agree that it is acceptable for avoidable deaths to occur if they're not viably avoidable within the budget.
Well if so, I consider the lockdown an unacceptable price to pay and if that means extra deaths then so be it, that's the price you pay for not having a blank cheque.
When it comes to what the NHS should spend money on, we have agreed cut-offs used by NICE in terms of £ per quality-adjusted life year gained. Have you or anyone else tried to systematise this argument you are making in terms of what was gained by lockdown in terms of QALYs saved and what it cost, turning all the costs of lockdown into a monetary equivalent amount?
Or are you just saying that lockdown was so awful that no number of QALYs saved would ever justify it?
The former would be interesting to read. The latter seems somewhat absolutist. Your insistence that lockdown should never be done again in any circumstance seems to either assign too much cost to lockdown or to suggest a lack of epidemiological imagination in terms of future pandemics.
I would absolutely love to see a QALY-style calculation, with the cost of lockdowns economically combined with as you suggest a monetary equivalent amount for the loss of liberty and disruption to education. I would assign a very high monetary equivalent 'cost' for education, liberty etc to be curtailed.
This is not my area of expertise but I fully expect that such a QALY calculation would categorically show that lockdown was not remotely "worth" it by pre-existing standards.
Comparing what happened with the range of what might have happened without lockdowns could be done in terms of QALYs without any reference to money, bearing in mind that being locked down reduces the quality of life measurably similarly to how it can be reduced due to physical weakness etc. - at least for most people. Personally I still ran 5km every day outside which was lawful throughout.
Compared with a lingering death through debilitating illness and chronic pain, not being allowed to sit on a park bench for a couple of months during lockdown is of nothing. Check your privilege, as the Wokeists say. Remember David Cameron's remark, after Ivan's death, that he did not know if his son had ever been happy for a single day.
Comments
A simple %age off bills would be the easiest and most equitable way to solve this. And would keep the incentive to save energy too.
There are some new documentaries on youtube in Australia, including one done by Sky.
Essentially, Tony Abbot revealed in 2020 that he was told by the Malaysians that they thought it was 'murder / suicide', and the implication is that the captain was responsible.
Then, there are some new theories about the 'pings', there is a suggestion that the plane was actually in a holding pattern for a while after it went off the radar, the implied hypothesis is that the captain was in negotiations with the authorities about something.
One odd thing, is that there is an Australian author who has written a book about the case, Ean Higgins.
He has just gone 'missing'.
There are assurances in the documentary that there are no suspicious circumstances, but there are no obituaries or appeals/inquests going on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/uv6lwa/what_the_hell_happened_to_ean_higgins/
the sky documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcIwt2bRDkc
Writing for The Mail on Sunday, the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest said she would strengthen the historic ties between the countries.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11109363/Liz-Truss-promises-deliver-Britain.html
Labours plan as it stands wont wash, it is also or will be once picked apart, politically toxic.. Of course there may be more to come but i am not holding my breath.
Who knows whether it’ll happen, or not, but I’d strongly recommend NOT taking a new energy fix, for the time being, should you be so inclined. Those people who do could end up getting completely screwed.
Hold out and stay on the cap, for now, is my strong advice.
What is the alternative? We haven't heard it.
i had a crush. I confess
I forget she had such amazing cheekbones
I COULD BE HAPPY
aHHHHHHH
"maybe swim a mile, down the Nile"
*sob*
Your second point is weird. In this devomax arrangement, I would expect that some tax revenue would end up at Whitehall to pay for Defence etc. And another transfer, in the other direction, to take account of regional inequality and the general additional costs of running Scotland (ferries etc) (this, netted off against the Defence transfer, is what people call the "Union dividend" at the mo).
In any case, I suggested only all income taxes, not all taxes, would be devolved in my proposal.
Also in the last 24 hours you have called a poster from the right a lefty Marxist and another poster a snowflake who clearly isn't and coming from someone who shows all the characteristics of snowflakery in nearly every post. Snowflakes aren't just on the left you know.
“What can one say,” former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Putin’s Security Council, wrote Friday. “Don’t forget that there are nuclear sites in the European Union, too. And incidents are possible there as well.”'
source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-threatens-to-sabotage-european-nuclear-power-plants/ar-AA10BslX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ee5854b10c494c6ab7bb279105f70dec
Somtimes I think "Czar" Putin doesn't want to be friends with us.
Sun says 80% votes are in, and its all but over
One young Boris Johnson tries to turn the whole event into a joke where everyone is laughing with him at how badly written the book is. He wipes out the entire previous very tense few minutes of earnest debate.
In one two minutes of Johnson speaking a historian in the future will grasp what a disaster for this country and for his party he was.
Nothing is serious. Nothing matters but me.
Roland Smith 🇺🇦
@rolandmcs
Christopher Hitchens on a Question Time panel with idiots (Boris Johnson) and the mealy-mouthed..... and the first question asked is about Salman Rushdie. Watch what happens next.
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1558137432578613248
Not chomping on flesh correlates too with better chances with Covid-19. That has even made the pages of the BMJ.
Sure, there are other factors. People sensible with their diet are often sensible in other ways too.
They all make reasonable points, bar Shirley Williams. I’m amazed that most of the audience seemed to be behind her. Wrong wrong wrong.
But on Boris’s performance;
There’s lots of reasons to dislike Boris, his politics and his legacy, but dissing him for that QT is just a cheap shot.
What he said was fine. I struggle to see what point you’re trying to make.??
Scots will not be happy being presented with a bill for eg Trident nuclear weapons, which they don’t want. It’s like a slap in the face.
The English will demand an end to the Barnett Formula, a key bastion holding the Union together. They will also increasingly wonder why they are the only nation denied a legislature and a government?
One thing is rock-solid guaranteed to not be devolved, and that is tax revenues from Scotland’s sector of the North Sea and North Atlantic. Without that it can never be Devomax.
No, Brown’s task is simply another marketing ploy: to tell Scots they’re getting Devomax while keeping the status quo.
I doubt veganism/vegetarianism for those in the lowest decile of income/wealth would improve their life expectancy by that much. Especially if they just substitute processed meaty junk food for the processed vegetarian/vegan junk food that’s now flooding supermarkets/fast food menus.
The list is endless.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Betfair next prime minister
1.07 Liz Truss 93%
13 Rishi Sunak 8%
Next Conservative leader
1.07 Liz Truss 93%
14 Rishi Sunak 7%
But joking aside...Medvedev is probably being quoted out of context. He was probably meaning to say don't say the Russians can't run the plant safely, and pointing out that while it's true there's a nonzero risk of an accident that's true at all nuke plants everywhere. He also seems to be saying that the Ukrainian line is not just that the Russians shelled the plant but that they shelled it by accident. I am not sure whether that is an accurate rendering of the Ukrainian position, although they are certainly saying the Russians shelled the plant. The Russian line is that it was the Ukrainians who shelled it. The idea that it was the Russians who did it should certainly come with one or more credible reasons why they might actually take over a nuclear plant and then shell it. Those who say "Russians is bad cos its like Hitler innit" are incapable of contributing usefully to a discussion of what's going on - either the physical conflict or the psychological warfare.
Agreed there are other possibilities and it's possible Medvedev's Telegram post aimed different messages at different markets. I doubt the Russian side gives much of a flying sh*t for what the mass market in Britain or the US under influence of the Daily Telegraph, BBC, NYT, etc. thinks about this war. Military, political, and business elites are quite another matter. Clearly they care what they think. In any case, all military strategists already know that nuclear power plants are sensitive places and they don't need to be informed on that matter by Mr Medvedev.
IIRC back in 1996 Alexander Lebed the "growling general" advocated (successfully) that the Russian side should sue for peace in Chechnya because Russian nuke installations couldn't be protected sufficiently well against Chechen attacks. He may possibly have been playing politics and of course war broke out again later, but I got the impression at the time that he was serious. He also spoke of nuclear material that had gone missing and of suitcase nukes.
No doubt that nuke plants especially (but not only) deep inside Russia are possible targets. So are nuke plants everywhere. Ditto North Sea oil rigs that nobody talks about. Both would play well for "spectaculars". It's an unsafe world.
1.11 Liz Truss
9.6 Rishi Sunak
I don’t see any scenario where the energy companies offer “rock bottom prices,” bar a crash in the wholesale price, unfortunately.
1) Saving the Govt a huge amount of interest on index linked gilts
2) Saving the Govt a huge amount on future inflation linked benefit rises
3) Takes at least some pressure off demand for huge pay increases (both public and private) which would otherwise also increase inflation
It basically stops the spiral getting going in the first place.
The News Desk
@TheNewsDesk
Could Truss or Sunak hold on to the Tories' most marginal seat?
The News Desk assembled a focus group of nine floating voters in Bury North, who backed the Conservatives in 2019, to find out.
https://twitter.com/TheNewsDesk/status/1557809256308641793
Now, maybe we are are so deep in shit that that doesn't matter but...
Not according to William Hill. Arb time?
Starmer 10/11
Truss 6/5
Sunak 12/1
Johnson 25/1
Rayner 33/1
Badenoch 66/1
Burnham 66/1
Mordaunt 66/1
Streeting 66/1
Wallace 66/1
100 bar
Not sure why Burnham’s in there? He’s not even an MP and isn’t seeking nomination to a seat (unless @AndreaParma_82 knows different?)
A lot of Con2019 voters are in a lot of personal pain at the moment. A lot of pain. The post cognitive dissonance is tangible.
We have a heat pump that we can switch to cooling mode when we have “tropical nights” (nighttime temperature does not sink under 20 C). Not as effective as proper A/C, but better than a fan, cheaper, and the system is installed in the house anyway.
Funnily enough, we’ve had fewer tropical nights this year than we usually have. Very, very pleasant weather here. And the gardens and countryside are very lush as we’ve had some good rain earlier in the summer.
This is not my area of expertise but I fully expect that such a QALY calculation would categorically show that lockdown was not remotely "worth" it by pre-existing standards.