Surely the way to settle all these public sector disputes is to announce that pay will be set from next year at the market rate to fill vacancies? Otherwise we'll be here again. From my experience it isn't all about money. It's about understaffing making the job increasingly difficult whilst having your real pay cut on top of it.
I think you are spot on. If you are fighting day in, day out just to do the job, you must start to wonder if there isn’t something else you could be doing. I’m very lucky in that I love my job, am fairly paid for doing it and I get to manage my own time.
You not on the UCU picket lines then, Turbo?
Nope. I have a lot of sympathy for those who are, notably the younger ones, but the hard facts are that final salary pensions are gone, uni life is pretty well rewarded in the main and if you think the private sector is better, go there
I agree, on the whole. Striking somewhat self-defeating for me, given I do bugger all teaching - no one is going to notice and I'll still need to make up the time to get my grants completed etc.
There are better paid options in my area,* but without the autonomy and freedom to choose what I work on, as long as I can convince someone to fund it.
Casualisation is an issue. Some unis/departments do take the piss a bit, but mine is actually very good on that.
*stats/code monkey for CROs for example, but that looks dull
My role is really diverse. Teaching, supporting research (I maintain analytical kit, and help people get best results), research. All fun. Just had a decent chunk of funding for new toys, sorry essential research equipment that will be new at Bat at some point next year. All in all, a good time.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
That sort of negative appeal may well win an election for Starmer, but it won't sustain that government very long. There needs to be some vision and enthusiasm for that, and there is where Starmer is so lacking.
The Conservatives have managed for twelve years and counting without one. Labour would take that.
Nonsense. How can anyone claim, for one example, that the 2019 election wasn't won on a specific vision? It was a three word slogan!
But what did " get Brexit done" actually mean? If "get Brexit done badly" was a vision, by f***, mission accomplished.
Decry the details for sure, but the nation was in deadlock before the 2019 election, and Brexit is indeed done, at least as far as leaving and setting arrangements with the EU. That the nirvana we were promised hasn't yet arrived, and it's all a bit rubbish does not mean Brexit isn't done.
Fair enough. My personal three word slogan is "lose some weight". If I hack off a limb, job done!
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
The Jesus of Nazareth who criticised tax collection systems, Roman occupation and the blasphemies of the Herodian dynasty?
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Pff, since when have church hierarchies particularly cared what He might have thought? When it goes against what they want they declare He would want something else.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
The Jesus of Nazareth who criticised tax collection systems, Roman occupation and the blasphemies of the Herodian dynasty?
Did he? I thought Render unto Caesar was about staying out of the whole debate, and going the extra mile was about positively embracing the occupation. Dunno about the Herods.
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
If Labour is reliant on voters like you to form even a minority government, let's face it, they are f*****!
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
I really don’t think you are. You bang on incessantly about “lefties” on here (a huge tell) , constantly criticise SKS without any bad word to say about the Govt, and a quick view of current polling and by-election results suggests that “classic floating voters” have moved to Labour - you are clearly not one of them. Thankfully, as it stands, Labour doesn’t need your vote.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
But this is pathetic. The plague has killed 20 million people, destroyed millions more lives, and is reshaping the world economy (in multiple ways, good and bad - often bad). It is even changing how we live - WFH etc
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
Surely the way to settle all these public sector disputes is to announce that pay will be set from next year at the market rate to fill vacancies? Otherwise we'll be here again. From my experience it isn't all about money. It's about understaffing making the job increasingly difficult whilst having your real pay cut on top of it.
I think you are spot on. If you are fighting day in, day out just to do the job, you must start to wonder if there isn’t something else you could be doing. I’m very lucky in that I love my job, am fairly paid for doing it and I get to manage my own time.
You not on the UCU picket lines then, Turbo?
Nope. I have a lot of sympathy for those who are, notably the younger ones, but the hard facts are that final salary pensions are gone, uni life is pretty well rewarded in the main and if you think the private sector is better, go there
I agree, on the whole. Striking somewhat self-defeating for me, given I do bugger all teaching - no one is going to notice and I'll still need to make up the time to get my grants completed etc.
There are better paid options in my area,* but without the autonomy and freedom to choose what I work on, as long as I can convince someone to fund it.
Casualisation is an issue. Some unis/departments do take the piss a bit, but mine is actually very good on that.
*stats/code monkey for CROs for example, but that looks dull
Autonomy can be pretty important as far as satisfaction goes. I saw a theory that you really need 3 things.
Some amount of variety (even at the level of say running different programmes of work on your industrial machinery), some amount of autonomy (so you have at least some level of control of your operation, even if just the order you do things), and a clear relationship between your effort and results (that is, it actually makes a difference, even small, if you work hard or if you laze about).
Out of interest and nothing to do with anything on here:
Why is demand for electricity in France nearly double that of the UK? (55 GW against 33GW.) I mean, they have a similar size of population, surely?
I'm not forgetting they're exporting a lot of power to (at this moment) us, the Swiss and the Italians, but it still seems a surprisingly large discrepancy.
Do they do a lot more manufacturing or other high energy parts of the economy? It surely cannot be domestic usage.
My guess, nuclear generated electric has been so cheap for so long that they all preferentially heat with it, not gas or oil.
OK, that makes sense. Thanks to all who answered.
Seems not to be true though
"... it appears that the French use much more electricity, whereas the UK uses a little more gas. The average yearly usage amounts currently stand as so:
United Kingdom: 3,100 kWh of electricity & 12,500 kWh of gas France: 4,670 kWh of electricity and 11,800 kWh of gas
You may think that the discrepancies between the two usages level the playing field; however, due to electricity being much more expensive per kWh in general, people in France are destined to pay more in their average energy bills.
When it comes down to the actual price of energy, there is not a great deal of difference. France’s electricity is a tad cheaper, whereas in the UK, gas is a little cheaper. Arguably, that slight reduction in electricity is more beneficial, especially with France’s higher usage, but the verdict stands as the UK being the cheaper of the two in general."
Not sure what to conclude from that. Heating in the Alps and Pyrenees must consume a lot, but it doesn't seem from this that electric is virtually free in France, as I thought.
So industrial use is a possibility.
But that wouldn't explain why it's so much higher right now.
I've posted European demand numbers per pop occasionally. The range is always quite startling. Placed like Norway are double or more places like the UK - we are fairly exceptional but there are one or two others who are about as low.
France is also has certain heavy demands it powers, such as CERN.
One interesting thing in supply is that in the cold snap our electricity demand increased more than I was expecting - up by something like 25-30%. And we have been importing across the board for the first time since early spring.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
If Labour is reliant on voters like you to form even a minority government, let's face it, they are f*****!
Specifically, they need voters like me to get a majority big enough to be able to do stuff with.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
I really don’t think you are. You bang on incessantly about “lefties” on here (a huge tell) , constantly criticise SKS without any bad word to say about the Govt, and a quick view of current polling and by-election results suggests that “classic floating voters” have moved to Labour - you are clearly not one of them. Thankfully, as it stands, Labour doesn’t need your vote.
Well, I'm sorry you think I'm a liar, but I can't do anything about that.
NEW: Planning is underway for President Biden to welcome Zelensky to the White House tomorrow in a surprise visit that will coincide with the administration’s announcement that it will send Patriot systems to Ukraine, @Phil_Mattingly reports
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Citation required.
Mark 12:17
"Pay your taxes" could be seen as rather political imo ;-)
I reckon there is now a serious chance we will end up concluding this not only came from the lab (already highly probable) but that the virus was engineered, AND it was engineered in tandem with the desires of Chinese bioweapons researchers, looking into dangerous "chimeric coronaviruses" able to "cripple enemy health systems"
That's quite a long way from "a pangolin pissed on a fruitbat in a curry"
You left out that it was paid for by America. And you might even be right.
He is right. The bottom line is, America (the political entity, not the people) wanted to continue this research, and they didn't give a flying fuck if that meant the Chinese having access to deadly bioweapons.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
But this is pathetic. The plague has killed 20 million people, destroyed millions more lives, and is reshaping the world economy (in multiple ways, good and bad - often bad). It is even changing how we live - WFH etc
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
But this is pathetic. The plague has killed 20 million people, destroyed millions more lives, and is reshaping the world economy (in multiple ways, good and bad - often bad). It is even changing how we live - WFH etc
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
Oh please, there's any number of things that are super important that you will not be devoting your life into exploring the big issues around. Maybe you want to enjoy an evening at the pub, or spend time with a beloved child, whatever floats your boat, but something globally important will have gone begging because of it.
More power to you for feeling exercised by being a truthseeker, but unless you're spending every waking hour on such an issue, it's simply a question of degree between your level and apathy in the face of it.
To be sure, some of this googled information is interesting, some of it isn't, but your frustration seems to stem from the fact that they don't get the emotional response you are after because, well, it all feels a bit half hearted on your part, a bit formulaic. You probably know a storyteller, and with no variation in tone or intensity how could anyone sustain emotional investment?
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Citation required.
Mark 12:17
"Pay your taxes" could be seen as rather political imo ;-)
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
But this is pathetic. The plague has killed 20 million people, destroyed millions more lives, and is reshaping the world economy (in multiple ways, good and bad - often bad). It is even changing how we live - WFH etc
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
I need to work on my ambition that frantically googling and then parsing the conspiracy nonsense from real information will see me crack the secrets of the world which elude the finest minds of humanity.
Seeing as how this is (purportedly) a betting website, have any PBers put any lose change on US Rep. Steve Scalise (R of Louisiana) as the next Speaker of the House?
Check it out - might be worth a fling. Personally would rather bet on Scalise than on Kevin McCarthy (R of Mar-a-Lardo)!
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Citation required.
Mark 12:17
"Pay your taxes" could be seen as rather political imo ;-)
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
Absolutely. And in this case of a natural pathogen. Leon rants and raves and posts bits from peoples emails that proves (to him at least) that he is right. And yet I go to the science literature and there is no consensus, rather most believe it to be natural. The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
NEW: Planning is underway for President Biden to welcome Zelensky to the White House tomorrow in a surprise visit that will coincide with the administration’s announcement that it will send Patriot systems to Ukraine, @Phil_Mattingly reports
Even now the USA (big benefactor though it is being) making the supplicant come to them?
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
The minor 2007 outbreak was. 2001 was feeding dodgy leftovers to pigs.
Everybody seems to think the NHS is unsustainable, but I doubt there’s any unity behind what might replace it.
I think the rather boring, awful answer is likely more money, but those figures I posted yesterday on the significant lack of capital expenditure versus peer systems points to a grand and systemic misallocation of funds.
I'm no NHS cheerleader. But it does have one undeniable benefit over its counterparts elsewhere, which is that it is cheap. Whether it is good value is more debatable, but my view is that it is (at the risk of falling into the trap of setting the American model up as the only alternative, the American model is awful, awful value for money; incentives are set up to introduce things which patients don't value.)
Is there a way of keeping the value for money while improving the quality? My view is that the way to do so would be to introduce notional charging, similar to the way we pay for prescriptions (I think this may be what the Irish do, but my understanding of this is slight). Free at the point of use isn't, in my view, supportable in the long term without adding increasing levels of tax burden to the working population. I'm very open to changing my mind on this however.
I was in Germany when they introduced a EUR 10.00 fee for a doctor's appointment in 2004. In the end, though, it failed to achieve the stated aim of reducing superfluous visits to the doctor, but instead deterred poorer people from seeking necessary treatment. It also ended up costing more in administration than it brought in income and was abolished in 2013.
There is no national healthcare system in Sweden, it is organised on a regional basis. Fees vary from region to region, but a visit to the GP is 100kr to 300kr (£7.90 to £23.70) and a visit to a consultant is 200kr to 400kr (£15.80 to £31.60).
It is fairly easy to get a GP appointment, especially for children (who are free), but you might have to wait a few days if it’s not urgent. Nearly all contact is electronic, made easy by the national id system. Repeat prescriptions are super easy.
In addition to the public services, there is a plethora of private providers, mostly online but increasingly concessions at the entrances to big supermarkets. Mental healthcare online is huge, as are holiday/flu/whatever vaccinations down at the supermarket.
I believe I am right in saying you also have to pay a % of the cost of any prescription drugs (up to a yearly cap) and also there is a fee per day for hospital stay.
I always find it interesting that left leaning people in the UK for many years have pointed to Sweden as a model of how the UK should do public services, but I have a feeling the same people would be totally against implementation of this element of the Swedish system (in fact we see it when the idea of GP fees / fines for appointments are ever raised here).
The "debate" immediately defaults to NHS vs US system comparisons, rather than the multitudes of other very successful healthcare systems out there.
Yes, that is correct: prescriptions are very expensive, but there is an annual cap of 2,400kr (£189), protecting the very ill. So, for example, if you have cancer, you are prescribed your chemotherapy drugs, but as they are dear the bills cease once you reach £189, so a long way under their real cost.
And yes there is a modest daily fee for hospital stays, to cover lighting, heating, food etc. Well worth the cost in my experience. The quality is outstanding. Again, there are protections for the vulnerable, who also receive financial support for travel to and from hospitals.
I think a lot of left-leaning people have a very romantic view of the Nordic countries. They think we are soft and cuddly. Quite the opposite. It can be a very hard culture. Yes, productivity is high, but that inevitably means that slackers are not tolerated. I’m afraid that England is widely considered to be a country of slackers. The NHS is looked on with bewilderment.
Gullis is repulsive, but this is a non point. What he said was 'When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics" ' which is different, and is also pretty in line with the thinking of prominent Christian thinkers like Jesus of Nazareth.
Citation required.
Mark 12:17
"Pay your taxes" could be seen as rather political imo ;-)
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
Why not Farage, Scottish independence, or an alliance with Putin, or a tungsten tipped Brexit then? What about totally open borders? What about saving tens of billions by scrapping the MoD wholesale?
Such sentiments lead to sloppy (or no) thinking and poor governance - sometimes even worse governance.
Government is complex, complicated and difficult - if we've learnt anything over the last 15 years it should be that.
We have a nihilistic government that believes in nothing, has no ideology and is manifestly incompetent. But yes, let’s re-elect them on the grounds Labour have no ideas.
If Labour have no ideas then they also fulfil two of the three criteria. And there's no guarantee they won't be more incompetent.
It is impossible to be more incompetent than this shower. Look, you’re a Tory, fine, you and HYUFD will prop up their floor of votes. Don’t concern troll about the vision of the Labour Party when the Tories have your vote in the bag come what may.
No, I'm not a Tory. I'm a classic floating voter desperate to find reasons to vote Labour because all things being equal the government does need replacing every 10-12 years.
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
A floating voter like HYUFD?
I've never voted PC.
But I have voted Labour, Lib Dem and Green in parliamentary elections.
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
I'm fairly confident that if it was proved that a Chinese lab leak had lead to a pandemic with effects on a par with a world war it would have consequences that every one of us would notice. I think that is part of the reason so many are reluctant to seriously consider the possibility, because what do we do if China is responsible?
Seeing as how this is (purportedly) a betting website, have any PBers put any lose change on US Rep. Steve Scalise (R of Louisiana) as the next Speaker of the House?
Check it out - might be worth a fling. Personally would rather bet on Scalise than on Kevin McCarthy (R of Mar-a-Lardo)!
"lose change" pretty much sums it up for me
Does anyone deal with Fitzdares btw? I opened an account, put in a tenner, placed a WC final bet but I don'r remember what, they promptly locked me out and don't respond to emails.
Everybody seems to think the NHS is unsustainable, but I doubt there’s any unity behind what might replace it.
I think the rather boring, awful answer is likely more money, but those figures I posted yesterday on the significant lack of capital expenditure versus peer systems points to a grand and systemic misallocation of funds.
I'm no NHS cheerleader. But it does have one undeniable benefit over its counterparts elsewhere, which is that it is cheap. Whether it is good value is more debatable, but my view is that it is (at the risk of falling into the trap of setting the American model up as the only alternative, the American model is awful, awful value for money; incentives are set up to introduce things which patients don't value.)
Is there a way of keeping the value for money while improving the quality? My view is that the way to do so would be to introduce notional charging, similar to the way we pay for prescriptions (I think this may be what the Irish do, but my understanding of this is slight). Free at the point of use isn't, in my view, supportable in the long term without adding increasing levels of tax burden to the working population. I'm very open to changing my mind on this however.
I was in Germany when they introduced a EUR 10.00 fee for a doctor's appointment in 2004. In the end, though, it failed to achieve the stated aim of reducing superfluous visits to the doctor, but instead deterred poorer people from seeking necessary treatment. It also ended up costing more in administration than it brought in income and was abolished in 2013.
There is no national healthcare system in Sweden, it is organised on a regional basis. Fees vary from region to region, but a visit to the GP is 100kr to 300kr (£7.90 to £23.70) and a visit to a consultant is 200kr to 400kr (£15.80 to £31.60).
It is fairly easy to get a GP appointment, especially for children (who are free), but you might have to wait a few days if it’s not urgent. Nearly all contact is electronic, made easy by the national id system. Repeat prescriptions are super easy.
In addition to the public services, there is a plethora of private providers, mostly online but increasingly concessions at the entrances to big supermarkets. Mental healthcare online is huge, as are holiday/flu/whatever vaccinations down at the supermarket.
I believe I am right in saying you also have to pay a % of the cost of any prescription drugs (up to a yearly cap) and also there is a fee per day for hospital stay.
I always find it interesting that left leaning people in the UK for many years have pointed to Sweden as a model of how the UK should do public services, but I have a feeling the same people would be totally against implementation of this element of the Swedish system (in fact we see it when the idea of GP fees / fines for appointments are ever raised here).
The "debate" immediately defaults to NHS vs US system comparisons, rather than the multitudes of other very successful healthcare systems out there.
Yes, that is correct: prescriptions are very expensive, but there is an annual cap of 2,400kr (£189), protecting the very ill. So, for example, if you have cancer, you are prescribed your chemotherapy drugs, but as they are dear the bills cease once you reach £189, so a long way under their real cost.
And yes there is a modest daily fee for hospital stays, to cover lighting, heating, food etc. Well worth the cost in my experience. The quality is outstanding. Again, there are protections for the vulnerable, who also receive financial support for travel to and from hospitals.
I think a lot of left-leaning people have a very romantic view of the Nordic countries. They think we are soft and cuddly. Quite the opposite. It can be a very hard culture. Yes, productivity is high, but that inevitably means that slackers are not tolerated. I’m afraid that England is widely considered to be a country of slackers. The NHS is looked on with bewilderment.
BIB You can’t help yourself can you? Really good, informative post, ruined by a pathetic and almos5 certainly made up dig at the English. I think you have problems.
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
I'm fairly confident that if it was proved that a Chinese lab leak had lead to a pandemic with effects on a par with a world war it would have consequences that every one of us would notice. I think that is part of the reason so many are reluctant to seriously consider the possibility, because what do we do if China is responsible?
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
Absolutely. And in this case of a natural pathogen. Leon rants and raves and posts bits from peoples emails that proves (to him at least) that he is right. And yet I go to the science literature and there is no consensus, rather most believe it to be natural. The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
On balance of probabilities it's a lab leak. On the basis of understanding how China acts, their lack of fucks given about lab safety and scientist safety it's also likely a lab leak.
I can't get past either of these factors to believe the zoonotic origin theory. It would just be too coincidental for this to specific disease to originate just down the road from where China had a research lab for exactly this disease.
I would like to get all of the accused parties, British and American, to face the music under oath either to Congress or Parliament with the threat of jail time for perjury should evidence emerge they lied to the committee. It's the only way we'll get closure. A lot of the actual evidence that Leon cites needs to answers from these parties, under oath to a hostile committee. As scientists they should be ready to defend themselves.
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
I'm fairly confident that if it was proved that a Chinese lab leak had lead to a pandemic with effects on a par with a world war it would have consequences that every one of us would notice. I think that is part of the reason so many are reluctant to seriously consider the possibility, because what do we do if China is responsible?
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
I'm fairly confident that if it was proved that a Chinese lab leak had lead to a pandemic with effects on a par with a world war it would have consequences that every one of us would notice. I think that is part of the reason so many are reluctant to seriously consider the possibility, because what do we do if China is responsible?
Pretend they aren't.
That's the most likely outcome.
I think it would accelerate western withdrawal from Chinese supply chains.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
Absolutely. And in this case of a natural pathogen. Leon rants and raves and posts bits from peoples emails that proves (to him at least) that he is right. And yet I go to the science literature and there is no consensus, rather most believe it to be natural. The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
On balance of probabilities it's a lab leak. On the basis of understanding how China acts, their lack of fucks given about lab safety and scientist safety it's also likely a lab leak.
I can't get past either of these factors to believe the zoonotic origin theory. It would just be too coincidental for this to specific disease to originate just down the road from where China had a research lab for exactly this disease.
I would like to get all of the accused parties, British and American, to face the music under oath either to Congress or Parliament with the threat of jail time for perjury should evidence emerge they lied to the committee. It's the only way we'll get closure. A lot of the actual evidence that Leon cites needs to answers from these parties, under oath to a hostile committee. As scientists they should be ready to defend themselves.
Max, I know you have a decent science background. Have you looked beyond conspiracy postings on this? Coincidences happen, all the time.
As I keep saying, it’s possible, but not proven. But yes, testimony in front of parliamentary committees and congress is required.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
Absolutely. And in this case of a natural pathogen. Leon rants and raves and posts bits from peoples emails that proves (to him at least) that he is right. And yet I go to the science literature and there is no consensus, rather most believe it to be natural. The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
On balance of probabilities it's a lab leak. On the basis of understanding how China acts, their lack of fucks given about lab safety and scientist safety it's also likely a lab leak.
I can't get past either of these factors to believe the zoonotic origin theory. It would just be too coincidental for this to specific disease to originate just down the road from where China had a research lab for exactly this disease.
I would like to get all of the accused parties, British and American, to face the music under oath either to Congress or Parliament with the threat of jail time for perjury should evidence emerge they lied to the committee. It's the only way we'll get closure. A lot of the actual evidence that Leon cites needs to answers from these parties, under oath to a hostile committee. As scientists they should be ready to defend themselves.
Scientists defend themselves in the scientific literature. That's how science works.
At the risk of getting into another spat, what material difference will it make to kle4 either way? The dead are dead, the economies are fecked, the upheaval has upheaved. Say it was totally 100% confirmed tomorrow to have been a lab leak - what difference will that make to kle4’s day?
I'm fairly confident that if it was proved that a Chinese lab leak had lead to a pandemic with effects on a par with a world war it would have consequences that every one of us would notice. I think that is part of the reason so many are reluctant to seriously consider the possibility, because what do we do if China is responsible?
Pretend they aren't.
That's the most likely outcome.
I can believe the lab leak as a theory (without taking a punt as to how probable a theory), but my point which Leon seems to have somewhat overinflated due to the language I used was that it will never be proven 100% (nothing is), and therefore in practical terms it won't make a massive difference as the 'consensus' will shift for reasons other than evidence. For now, officially not thinking they did it, even if governments come to believe they did (rightly or not), and taking only unofficial actions, seems probable.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
Absolutely. And in this case of a natural pathogen. Leon rants and raves and posts bits from peoples emails that proves (to him at least) that he is right. And yet I go to the science literature and there is no consensus, rather most believe it to be natural. The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
On balance of probabilities it's a lab leak. On the basis of understanding how China acts, their lack of fucks given about lab safety and scientist safety it's also likely a lab leak.
I can't get past either of these factors to believe the zoonotic origin theory. It would just be too coincidental for this to specific disease to originate just down the road from where China had a research lab for exactly this disease.
I would like to get all of the accused parties, British and American, to face the music under oath either to Congress or Parliament with the threat of jail time for perjury should evidence emerge they lied to the committee. It's the only way we'll get closure. A lot of the actual evidence that Leon cites needs to answers from these parties, under oath to a hostile committee. As scientists they should be ready to defend themselves.
Max, I know you have a decent science background. Have you looked beyond conspiracy postings on this? Coincidences happen, all the time.
As I keep saying, it’s possible, but not proven. But yes, testimony in front of parliamentary committees and congress is required.
I don't think it's proven either, which is why I said I believe it based on the balance of probabilities. If irrefutable evidence emerged that it was zoonotic origin with no involvement from the lab I'd want to see it and then if true, I'd change my mind on it. One of the reasons I'm fairly certain it wasn't zoonotic is that China would already have provided said evidence proving it, if it existed. That they haven't adds to the general sense that it's a lab leak which they then covered up, as they do in China.
I don't rate coincidences. It's not a coincidence that fluorine and chlorine have similar chemical properties, there's a reason for it. Coincidences are, in my experience, usually a situation where we're missing the full picture or lacking understanding. In 1908 I'm sure it must have been a weird coincidence that fluorine and chlorine were similar, then we found the evidence to understand why that was.
At the moment we have horrible masks and gloves. We try to order the decent stuff, but like some deranged online supermarket get substitutions from the NHS reserves. Masks that irritate, gloves that don't fit or are slippery.
I suppose we have years of stock to get though before we can get the decent stuff again.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
Because it’s case not proven, and every other pandemic has been natural in origin. You might be right. But the case is not proven.
Foot and mouth, though affecting animals primarily, was due to a lab leak. It's not uncommon for lab leaks to result in disease outbreaks.
Absolutely. And in this case of a natural pathogen. Leon rants and raves and posts bits from peoples emails that proves (to him at least) that he is right. And yet I go to the science literature and there is no consensus, rather most believe it to be natural. The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
On balance of probabilities it's a lab leak. On the basis of understanding how China acts, their lack of fucks given about lab safety and scientist safety it's also likely a lab leak.
I can't get past either of these factors to believe the zoonotic origin theory. It would just be too coincidental for this to specific disease to originate just down the road from where China had a research lab for exactly this disease.
I would like to get all of the accused parties, British and American, to face the music under oath either to Congress or Parliament with the threat of jail time for perjury should evidence emerge they lied to the committee. It's the only way we'll get closure. A lot of the actual evidence that Leon cites needs to answers from these parties, under oath to a hostile committee. As scientists they should be ready to defend themselves.
Scientists defend themselves in the scientific literature. That's how science works.
They're alleged to have skirted around US bans on gain of function research and funneled US government money to a Chinese lab to get around them. Congress and Parliament must have answers from them.
Everybody seems to think the NHS is unsustainable, but I doubt there’s any unity behind what might replace it.
I think the rather boring, awful answer is likely more money, but those figures I posted yesterday on the significant lack of capital expenditure versus peer systems points to a grand and systemic misallocation of funds.
I'm no NHS cheerleader. But it does have one undeniable benefit over its counterparts elsewhere, which is that it is cheap. Whether it is good value is more debatable, but my view is that it is (at the risk of falling into the trap of setting the American model up as the only alternative, the American model is awful, awful value for money; incentives are set up to introduce things which patients don't value.)
Is there a way of keeping the value for money while improving the quality? My view is that the way to do so would be to introduce notional charging, similar to the way we pay for prescriptions (I think this may be what the Irish do, but my understanding of this is slight). Free at the point of use isn't, in my view, supportable in the long term without adding increasing levels of tax burden to the working population. I'm very open to changing my mind on this however.
I was in Germany when they introduced a EUR 10.00 fee for a doctor's appointment in 2004. In the end, though, it failed to achieve the stated aim of reducing superfluous visits to the doctor, but instead deterred poorer people from seeking necessary treatment. It also ended up costing more in administration than it brought in income and was abolished in 2013.
There is no national healthcare system in Sweden, it is organised on a regional basis. Fees vary from region to region, but a visit to the GP is 100kr to 300kr (£7.90 to £23.70) and a visit to a consultant is 200kr to 400kr (£15.80 to £31.60).
It is fairly easy to get a GP appointment, especially for children (who are free), but you might have to wait a few days if it’s not urgent. Nearly all contact is electronic, made easy by the national id system. Repeat prescriptions are super easy.
In addition to the public services, there is a plethora of private providers, mostly online but increasingly concessions at the entrances to big supermarkets. Mental healthcare online is huge, as are holiday/flu/whatever vaccinations down at the supermarket.
I believe I am right in saying you also have to pay a % of the cost of any prescription drugs (up to a yearly cap) and also there is a fee per day for hospital stay.
I always find it interesting that left leaning people in the UK for many years have pointed to Sweden as a model of how the UK should do public services, but I have a feeling the same people would be totally against implementation of this element of the Swedish system (in fact we see it when the idea of GP fees / fines for appointments are ever raised here).
The "debate" immediately defaults to NHS vs US system comparisons, rather than the multitudes of other very successful healthcare systems out there.
Yes, that is correct: prescriptions are very expensive, but there is an annual cap of 2,400kr (£189), protecting the very ill. So, for example, if you have cancer, you are prescribed your chemotherapy drugs, but as they are dear the bills cease once you reach £189, so a long way under their real cost.
And yes there is a modest daily fee for hospital stays, to cover lighting, heating, food etc. Well worth the cost in my experience. The quality is outstanding. Again, there are protections for the vulnerable, who also receive financial support for travel to and from hospitals.
I think a lot of left-leaning people have a very romantic view of the Nordic countries. They think we are soft and cuddly. Quite the opposite. It can be a very hard culture. Yes, productivity is high, but that inevitably means that slackers are not tolerated. I’m afraid that England is widely considered to be a country of slackers. The NHS is looked on with bewilderment.
That's very like the English Prescription system, for interest.
For people who pay, individual items are £9.35, but a season ticket for everything for 12 months is £108. Which is really very inexpensive.
Electronic prescription management is everywhere afaik, and online medical records are also in place, as I think are appointments. I'd be interested to know if any PBers do not have these services available.
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
Before we change how people end up in the lords it would make a lot more sense to decide on what we want the purpose of the House of Lords to be.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
NEW: Planning is underway for President Biden to welcome Zelensky to the White House tomorrow in a surprise visit that will coincide with the administration’s announcement that it will send Patriot systems to Ukraine, @Phil_Mattingly reports
Even now the USA (big benefactor though it is being) making the supplicant come to them?
We put Winston Churchill through a similar Perp Walk of Shame.
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
Before we change how people end up in the lords it would make a lot more sense to decide on what we want the purpose of the House of Lords to be.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
This is so true. We seem to have an aversion in this country to thinking things through from first principles. A legacy of not having had a revolution in over 350 years perhaps.
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
Before we change how people end up in the lords it would make a lot more sense to decide on what we want the purpose of the House of Lords to be.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
I think that's a fair observation.
I'm for a HoL which is consultative, somewhere in the spectrum of House of Expertise to House of Breadth of Experience, and a check and balance on the Commons especially for when the HoC goes nuts.
I very much like Carl Gardner's idea of a limited term (say 10 years) elected core, combined with a perhaps non-voting or limited voting appointed contingent who participate in debates and the work of the House.
NEW: Planning is underway for President Biden to welcome Zelensky to the White House tomorrow in a surprise visit that will coincide with the administration’s announcement that it will send Patriot systems to Ukraine, @Phil_Mattingly reports
Even now the USA (big benefactor though it is being) making the supplicant come to them?
We put Winston Churchill through a similar Perp Walk of Shame.
On Capitol Hill AND at the White House.
Hey, why not? Leader of the free world and all that.
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
Before we change how people end up in the lords it would make a lot more sense to decide on what we want the purpose of the House of Lords to be.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
This is so true. We seem to have an aversion in this country to thinking things through from first principles. A legacy of not having had a revolution in over 350 years perhaps.
The problem here is that there's no common "we", different people have different objectives.
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
But this is pathetic. The plague has killed 20 million people, destroyed millions more lives, and is reshaping the world economy (in multiple ways, good and bad - often bad). It is even changing how we live - WFH etc
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
Oh please, there's any number of things that are super important that you will not be devoting your life into exploring the big issues around. Maybe you want to enjoy an evening at the pub, or spend time with a beloved child, whatever floats your boat, but something globally important will have gone begging because of it.
More power to you for feeling exercised by being a truthseeker, but unless you're spending every waking hour on such an issue, it's simply a question of degree between your level and apathy in the face of it.
To be sure, some of this googled information is interesting, some of it isn't, but your frustration seems to stem from the fact that they don't get the emotional response you are after because, well, it all feels a bit half hearted on your part, a bit formulaic. You probably know a storyteller, and with no variation in tone or intensity how could anyone sustain emotional investment?
This is a place where people come for intellectual debate on major issues. Yet on this issue we should not engage or get exercised, because - what - is TOO major? Too distressing? Too boring, a mere plague, meh?
I could get why you might complain about my high intensity, unvarying engagement on *the deaths of 20 million people* if this was a website devoted to toast, or lacrosse or "being a milquetoast cuck" but this is not that. This is PB. We talk about massive political issues, and they don't get bigger than this
And, as it happens, I do think about this subject: every day. I google it constantly, and Twitter-search it. Which is probably why I am better informed - it seems to me - than anyone else on here. Is that obsessive? Maniacal? Well, maybe, but again this is the political story of the epoch. 20 million are dead. This is not "any number of things"
It will be interesting to see just how badly your lot can fuck this up. You Do Not Pick A Fight With The Nurses.
"We're sticking to the independent pay review body. Which we overrode last year, and may interfere with to get the independent result we want next year." People aren't stupid. Told to clap for carers and our heroic NHS staff we're now being told they are on the shill for Putin.
A 6% rise for nurses in line with the average national rise maybe. Or one off extra payment.
The 19% rise the RCN want however is unaffordable
I think TBH the best suggestion I have heard is a referral back to the National Review body, because circs have changed rapidly.
Or a somewhat increased offer plus a decent lump sum. I'd say that the Govt need to avoid locking in an extra 10+% every year from now to the Crack of Doomsday. The RCN have overclaimed IMO, and they are not that far behind on international comparisons.
I am not clear about recruiting pressures, seeing how the workforce has grown quite significantly.
I do though think it 80% likely that the Govt with cock up the politics.
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
Before we change how people end up in the lords it would make a lot more sense to decide on what we want the purpose of the House of Lords to be.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
This is so true. We seem to have an aversion in this country to thinking things through from first principles. A legacy of not having had a revolution in over 350 years perhaps.
Muddling along generally works ok, I'm in favour of it, but it does mean non critical problems may stick around well past when they should when (in theory, if less so in reality) a period of intense revelotionary activity might clear away some of those. In actuality revolutions rarely think things through (or think them through ideology which does not withstand real life), so you just create new problems.
With the proposals around the Lords I think it's correct that what is happening is general opinion has turned against it, which is fine, but its being approached like a mini revolutionary event, so gets treated with the urgency of 'we must do something now!' and not really thinking about.
If there was to be a genuine review, all options on the table approach, to a second chamber after the next election, I'm pretty confident the Lords would either end up elected or we'd do away with a second chamber altogether. And all the details of purpose and form would naturally form as part of that process. But since its already been decided what the outcome should be, it paradoxically makes it more awkward to try to figure out that purpose and form, since you are trying to make it fit into what you already decided.
I have to ask this, just in case it is (and I realise @Leon is prone to huge exaggeration).
Is masking really at 99% in Japan?
Yes, absolutely. 100%
No, really, I don't often exaggerate (I hyperbolise: a different thing). All the evidence on Twitter says extremely high masking: in the high 90s percent
It is beginning to send people rather mad with sadness:
"I don’t know how you people deal with seeing nothing but masked faces on a daily basis, because I seem to have forgotten how to.
I went out for the first time since last Saturday when I returned to Japan and had an instant anxiety attack and started crying in the middle of a busy road."
"I walked 35 min to a thrift shop and only saw two maskless faces other than mine. It’s almost Christmas 2023. I feel like I’m living in hell. This is agony. I can’t take it anymore. Leaving Japan would mean having to brake it off with my loving husband. I want to die."
Why are you all so wedded to zoonosis, pangolins and the wet market, when it is becoming intellectually embarrassing?
Really, why?
I don't understand the psychology. I mean, I do get it for effete, wanker scientists who can't accept the cruel reality - I'd probably be the same if it was convincingly argued that careless flint knappers killed 20 million people - but I am utterly mystified by the rest of a relatively smart bunch of people, as on PB, being so blinkered
Is it the political polarisation of this issue? ie coz the Trumpites/Republicans pushed the Lab Theory early, so it is now poisoned?
If so, that is sad. Really quite sad. We are better than that
Shape up, PB
People are't wedded to things, they just don't commit 100% to things immediately.
But that's not how you are all behaving. You are acting like the evidence is still 90/10 in favour of Zoonosis, or at best 60/40. whereas the reality - on any sane reading - is that it is now 90/10 in favour of some kind of lab leak
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
Actually I don't care enough to look into the evidence. Even if one theory was 99% proven the politics of the situation would determine the reaction, or lack thereof, so I'll leave it to historians and the shadowy forces of international diplomacy.
But this is pathetic. The plague has killed 20 million people, destroyed millions more lives, and is reshaping the world economy (in multiple ways, good and bad - often bad). It is even changing how we live - WFH etc
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
Oh please, there's any number of things that are super important that you will not be devoting your life into exploring the big issues around. Maybe you want to enjoy an evening at the pub, or spend time with a beloved child, whatever floats your boat, but something globally important will have gone begging because of it.
More power to you for feeling exercised by being a truthseeker, but unless you're spending every waking hour on such an issue, it's simply a question of degree between your level and apathy in the face of it.
To be sure, some of this googled information is interesting, some of it isn't, but your frustration seems to stem from the fact that they don't get the emotional response you are after because, well, it all feels a bit half hearted on your part, a bit formulaic. You probably know a storyteller, and with no variation in tone or intensity how could anyone sustain emotional investment?
This is a place where people come for intellectual debate on major issues. Yet on this issue we should not engage or get exercised, because - what - is TOO major? Too distressing? Too boring, a mere plague, meh?
I could get why you might complain about my high intensity, unvarying engagement on *the deaths of 20 million people* if this was a website devoted to toast, or lacrosse or "being a milquetoast cuck" but this is not that. This is PB. We talk about massive political issues, and they don't get bigger than this
And, as it happens, I do think about this subject: every day. I google it constantly, and Twitter-search it. Which is probably why I am better informed - it seems to me - than anyone else on here. Is that obsessive? Maniacal? Well, maybe, but again this is the political story of the epoch. 20 million are dead. This is not "any number of things"
PB is disappointingly feeble on this issue
I'm astonished you never seem to have come across the concept that some things can be so big, or so bleak, it overwhelms people, and they don't want to focus on it. It's a common problem in some fiction.
In politics we see a similar thing with a hyper focus on small details, pedantry even, rather than tackling the big problems even when it is obvious. Only the obsessives care about systemic incompetence and corruption, about housing crises, and failing education etc. Most people barely notice, day to day.
XR would say that attitude is a key reason they need to act like loons, to force attention on another issue killing millions which most people don't even think about.
I do appreciate you being indirect though, as we both know being a milquetoast cuck is my personal brand.
As my contributions are clearly not valued I will be leaving again.
Wish you a good Christmas
Thoughtful contributions are valued, but if all you have is, "it was all great when Labour were in office - get the Tories out" then that isn't one I value, I'm afraid.
For one thing that splurge in funding on the NHS over the 2000-2008 period was off the back of a huge boom in financial services and an asset bubble. And Labour weren't in office to deal with the huge contraction in the health of the public finances after the GFC.
For that to be credible, now, you'd have to identify how Labour would materially change the funding levels of the NHS in the current environment to achieve that same step change again.
Otherwise it's just football team stuff I'm afraid. I think you're better than that, and so are we.
Why do you not have a beef with Driver, Marquee Mark, amongst others, or even yourself? Because you are one of the seriously partisan posters and are quite content to read posts favourable to the Conservatives and antagonistic towards Labour, LD or the SNP.
Bearing in mind Horse has opened up about his health issues and rarely posts on here, giving him a good kicking when he returns is a bit s*** to be honest.
Oi, leave me out of it. I'm still looking for reasons to vote for Labour, even if Sir Keir doesn't seem interested in offering them and people like CHB are actively and deliberately trying to turn me away.
Because anything’s worth a try in comparison to the current shitshow?
That sort of negative appeal may well win an election for Starmer, but it won't sustain that government very long. There needs to be some vision and enthusiasm for that, and there is where Starmer is so lacking.
The Conservatives have managed for twelve years and counting without one. Labour would take that.
Nonsense. How can anyone claim, for one example, that the 2019 election wasn't won
on a specific vision? It was a three word slogan!
'Give everyone owls' would have been about as accurate.
No, but I’ve heard it’s gorgeous. Beautiful, idyllic countryside, perfect for cycling. Good food. Lovely beaches. Bit boring…
Not that you’ll notice, but I hear that the locals speak a very odd, archaic version of Danish. Historically, Bornholm was part of Skåne, and like its home province, plus Blekinge, Halland and (Norwegian) Bohuslen and Trøndelag, it was transferred to Sweden under the 1658 Treaty of Roskilde. However, Bornholm and Trøndelag almost immediately revolted and returned to their original countries (respectively Denmark and Norway). So, Bornholm Danish is the only surviving fragmentary dialect of the once extensive eastern Danish linguistic region.
(I won’t delight you with the idiosyncrasies of Skånska.)
Good to see, although it doesn’t surprise me. The idea that London’s massive agglomeration effect was going to be undone forever by a 20 month pandemic was risible even at the peak of the bug. Heard a lot of it on PB. But then you hear a lot of bullshit on PB.
Mr Gullis, MP for Stoke on Trent, went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme following the judgment to defend the policy.
When the bishop's criticism was put to him he replied: "I don't think unelected bishops in the House of Lords should be preaching about politics.
I think most CofE Bishops have a breadth of life experience that Mr Gullis can only dream about.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS .
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
Before we change how people end up in the lords it would make a lot more sense to decide on what we want the purpose of the House of Lords to be.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
This is so true. We seem to have an aversion in this country to thinking things through from first principles. A legacy of not having had a revolution in over 350 years perhaps.
The problem here is that there's no common "we", different people have different objectives.
True. But we never seem to make the effort to accept that and attempt compromise. It's always all or nothing.
I have to ask this, just in case it is (and I realise @Leon is prone to huge exaggeration).
Is masking really at 99% in Japan?
Yes, absolutely. 100%
No, really, I don't often exaggerate (I hyperbolise: a different thing). All the evidence on Twitter says extremely high masking: in the high 90s percent
It is beginning to send people rather mad with sadness:
"I don’t know how you people deal with seeing nothing but masked faces on a daily basis, because I seem to have forgotten how to.
I went out for the first time since last Saturday when I returned to Japan and had an instant anxiety attack and started crying in the middle of a busy road."
"I walked 35 min to a thrift shop and only saw two maskless faces other than mine. It’s almost Christmas 2023. I feel like I’m living in hell. This is agony. I can’t take it anymore. Leaving Japan would mean having to brake it off with my loving husband. I want to die."
It can be mocked as being a Disney Prince in totally serious criticism of supposed western overegging of Zelensky, but if a big part of being a leader in wartime is inspiring people by deed and word, it is the sort of thing that helps.
He seems to understand well his own strengths and weaknesses. He does the acting, the drama, the big stages, and leaves his generals and ministers to work out military strategy and sorting out the power and water supply.
Zeldisney is run by the State Department while Gen. Zaluzhny (head of the AFU) gets his guidance from the Pentagon. This will work fine until the interests and goals of those two august institutions diverge...
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
It can be mocked as being a Disney Prince in totally serious criticism of supposed western overegging of Zelensky, but if a big part of being a leader in wartime is inspiring people by deed and word, it is the sort of thing that helps.
He seems to understand well his own strengths and weaknesses. He does the acting, the drama, the big stages, and leaves his generals and ministers to work out military strategy and sorting out the power and water supply.
Zeldisney is run by the State Department while Gen. Zaluzhny (head of the AFU) gets his guidance from the Pentagon. This will work fine until the interests and goals of those two august institutions diverge...
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
"General Zaluzhny is too young to have served in the Soviet army and was never indoctrinated in its culture of “commandership”, which rewarded obedience and suppressed initiative. “It is always possible to be normal…to remain human in any situation—that is the most important thing.” But that does not mean he is not forceful: “Since the start of the war I fired ten [generals] because they were not up to it. Another shot himself.” He is even more ruthless, naturally, about the invaders he has been fighting since 2014: “Russians and any other enemies must be killed, just killed, and, most important of all, we should not be afraid to do it.”
It can be mocked as being a Disney Prince in totally serious criticism of supposed western overegging of Zelensky, but if a big part of being a leader in wartime is inspiring people by deed and word, it is the sort of thing that helps.
He seems to understand well his own strengths and weaknesses. He does the acting, the drama, the big stages, and leaves his generals and ministers to work out military strategy and sorting out the power and water supply.
Zeldisney is run by the State Department while Gen. Zaluzhny (head of the AFU) gets his guidance from the Pentagon. This will work fine until the interests and goals of those two august institutions diverge...
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
"General Zaluzhny is too young to have served in the Soviet army and was never indoctrinated in its culture of “commandership”, which rewarded obedience and suppressed initiative. “It is always possible to be normal…to remain human in any situation—that is the most important thing.” But that does not mean he is not forceful: “Since the start of the war I fired ten [generals] because they were not up to it. Another shot himself.” He is even more ruthless, naturally, about the invaders he has been fighting since 2014: “Russians and any other enemies must be killed, just killed, and, most important of all, we should not be afraid to do it.”
In this area (Seattle suburbs) it is common to see East Asians, especially women, wearing face masks on the streets. (When I meet one, I usually try to be polite, and pull up my own face mask over my mouth and nose -- and then pull it back down when I am 20 feet or so past them.
But matters are even worse here, so much worse that some of you may want to sit down for this: In the summer it is not unusual to see East Asian women, especially older women, wearing hats to protect their faces from the sun!
(Full disclosure: This morning started with freezing rain and turned to snow. When I went out to get a newspaper about an hour ago I put on a red (for Christmas) balaclava -- and pulled the bottom part up over my mouth and nose! I hope that confession didn't shock too many of you.)
No, but I’ve heard it’s gorgeous. Beautiful, idyllic countryside, perfect for cycling. Good food. Lovely beaches. Bit boring…
Not that you’ll notice, but I hear that the locals speak a very odd, archaic version of Danish. Historically, Bornholm was part of Skåne, and like its home province, plus Blekinge, Halland and (Norwegian) Bohuslen and Trøndelag, it was transferred to Sweden under the 1658 Treaty of Roskilde. However, Bornholm and Trøndelag almost immediately revolted and returned to their original countries (respectively Denmark and Norway). So, Bornholm Danish is the only surviving fragmentary dialect of the once extensive eastern Danish linguistic region.
(I won’t delight you with the idiosyncrasies of Skånska.)
It can be mocked as being a Disney Prince in totally serious criticism of supposed western overegging of Zelensky, but if a big part of being a leader in wartime is inspiring people by deed and word, it is the sort of thing that helps.
He seems to understand well his own strengths and weaknesses. He does the acting, the drama, the big stages, and leaves his generals and ministers to work out military strategy and sorting out the power and water supply.
Zeldisney is run by the State Department while Gen. Zaluzhny (head of the AFU) gets his guidance from the Pentagon. This will work fine until the interests and goals of those two august institutions diverge...
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
"General Zaluzhny is too young to have served in the Soviet army and was never indoctrinated in its culture of “commandership”, which rewarded obedience and suppressed initiative. “It is always possible to be normal…to remain human in any situation—that is the most important thing.” But that does not mean he is not forceful: “Since the start of the war I fired ten [generals] because they were not up to it. Another shot himself.” He is even more ruthless, naturally, about the invaders he has been fighting since 2014: “Russians and any other enemies must be killed, just killed, and, most important of all, we should not be afraid to do it.”
It can be mocked as being a Disney Prince in totally serious criticism of supposed western overegging of Zelensky, but if a big part of being a leader in wartime is inspiring people by deed and word, it is the sort of thing that helps.
He seems to understand well his own strengths and weaknesses. He does the acting, the drama, the big stages, and leaves his generals and ministers to work out military strategy and sorting out the power and water supply.
Zeldisney is run by the State Department while Gen. Zaluzhny (head of the AFU) gets his guidance from the Pentagon. This will work fine until the interests and goals of those two august institutions diverge...
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
"General Zaluzhny is too young to have served in the Soviet army and was never indoctrinated in its culture of “commandership”, which rewarded obedience and suppressed initiative. “It is always possible to be normal…to remain human in any situation—that is the most important thing.” But that does not mean he is not forceful: “Since the start of the war I fired ten [generals] because they were not up to it. Another shot himself.” He is even more ruthless, naturally, about the invaders he has been fighting since 2014: “Russians and any other enemies must be killed, just killed, and, most important of all, we should not be afraid to do it.”
Zaluzhny also tried to kill Gerasimov after the Pentagon told him not to. Just business. LOL.
Hang on, I thought you said they were mates?
Dunno if they play golf or anything, they've just enjoyed a close professional relationship in the past (according to Russian media). That doesn't mean they won't try to kill each other while they are on opposite sides.
It can be mocked as being a Disney Prince in totally serious criticism of supposed western overegging of Zelensky, but if a big part of being a leader in wartime is inspiring people by deed and word, it is the sort of thing that helps.
He seems to understand well his own strengths and weaknesses. He does the acting, the drama, the big stages, and leaves his generals and ministers to work out military strategy and sorting out the power and water supply.
Zeldisney is run by the State Department while Gen. Zaluzhny (head of the AFU) gets his guidance from the Pentagon. This will work fine until the interests and goals of those two august institutions diverge...
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
"General Zaluzhny is too young to have served in the Soviet army and was never indoctrinated in its culture of “commandership”, which rewarded obedience and suppressed initiative. “It is always possible to be normal…to remain human in any situation—that is the most important thing.” But that does not mean he is not forceful: “Since the start of the war I fired ten [generals] because they were not up to it. Another shot himself.” He is even more ruthless, naturally, about the invaders he has been fighting since 2014: “Russians and any other enemies must be killed, just killed, and, most important of all, we should not be afraid to do it.”
Zaluzhny also tried to kill Gerasimov after the Pentagon told him not to. Just business. LOL.
Hang on, I thought you said they were mates?
Dunno if they play golf or anything, they've just enjoyed a close professional relationship in the past (according to Russian media). That doesn't mean they won't try to kill each other while they are on opposite sides.
Interesting social structure in Russia these days then - “About that attempt to tear your face off with Mach 3 tungsten fragments - no hard feelings, right?”
Or have you considered that Russian media may be telling the kind of stories that Goebbels loved - the ones about how the Americans and the English and the Russians would all start fighting each other. Real soon. While the war got to the fashionable suburbs of Berlin…
Comments
Jesus of Nazareth was a prominent Jewish thinker.
sorry, received him not.
I detect some emotional inertia. BUT we have argued about this enough, for tonight
But people like you saying nonsense like "it's impossible to be more incompetent than the current government" are driving me away.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/london-most-searched-for-location-rightmove-over-cornwall-devon-2022-j6mkn35m6
https://what3words.com/field.hedge.tree takes you to a field, with a hedge, and a tree. In Derbyshire.
it is the single most epochal event in the lifetimes of everyone on here. And..... "I don't care enough to look into the evidence" of how it began? Of who or what was responsible?
This is redundant, pitiful and sad. Get a grip. Stop letting the world happen to you
Some amount of variety (even at the level of say running different programmes of work on your industrial machinery), some amount of autonomy (so you have at least some level of control of your operation, even if just the order you do things), and a clear relationship between your effort and results (that is, it actually makes a difference, even small, if you work hard or if you laze about).
France is also has certain heavy demands it powers, such as CERN.
One interesting thing in supply is that in the cold snap our electricity demand increased more than I was expecting - up by something like 25-30%. And we have been importing across the board for the first time since early spring.
More power to you for feeling exercised by being a truthseeker, but unless you're spending every waking hour on such an issue, it's simply a question of degree between your level and apathy in the face of it.
To be sure, some of this googled information is interesting, some of it isn't, but your frustration seems to stem from the fact that they don't get the emotional response you are after because, well, it all feels a bit half hearted on your part, a bit formulaic. You probably know a storyteller, and with no variation in tone or intensity how could anyone sustain emotional investment?
My avatar would be disappointed though.
Check it out - might be worth a fling. Personally would rather bet on Scalise than on Kevin McCarthy (R of Mar-a-Lardo)!
The debate on PB cannot be resolved as we don’t have enough evidence, and there are very entrenched views.
And yes there is a modest daily fee for hospital stays, to cover lighting, heating, food etc. Well worth the cost in my experience. The quality is outstanding. Again, there are protections for the vulnerable, who also receive financial support for travel to and from hospitals.
I think a lot of left-leaning people have a very romantic view of the Nordic countries. They think we are soft and cuddly. Quite the opposite. It can be a very hard culture. Yes, productivity is high, but that inevitably means that slackers are not tolerated. I’m afraid that England is widely considered to be a country of slackers. The NHS is looked on with bewilderment.
Gullis really is the definitive bishop basher.
But I have voted Labour, Lib Dem and Green in parliamentary elections.
Does anyone deal with Fitzdares btw? I opened an account, put in a tenner, placed a WC final bet but I don'r remember what, they promptly locked me out and don't respond to emails.
I think you have problems.
I can't get past either of these factors to believe the zoonotic origin theory. It would just be too coincidental for this to specific disease to originate just down the road from where China had a research lab for exactly this disease.
I would like to get all of the accused parties, British and American, to face the music under oath either to Congress or Parliament with the threat of jail time for perjury should evidence emerge they lied to the committee. It's the only way we'll get closure. A lot of the actual evidence that Leon cites needs to answers from these parties, under oath to a hostile committee. As scientists they should be ready to defend themselves.
As for keeping quiet, for example the current Bishop of London in the Lords - Sarah Mullaly - is a former Chief Nursing Offer for England. I'm sure she has *NOTHING* sensible to say about the NHS
She is also responsible for providing lay and ordained teams of chaplains to getting on for 100 hospitals in London. Whatever she says, if she does, it will be very well informed indeed and carefully pitched to be a positive contribution. Whining like that, Gullis doesn't stand a chance.
That breadth of experience and contact, and being in part professional thinkers, is why I support Bishops in the Lords - and would support a wider range of such figures.
"Unelected Bishops" only really become an issue if we have an elected Lords imo.
As I keep saying, it’s possible, but not proven. But yes, testimony in front of parliamentary committees and congress is required.
I don't rate coincidences. It's not a coincidence that fluorine and chlorine have similar chemical properties, there's a reason for it. Coincidences are, in my experience, usually a situation where we're missing the full picture or lacking understanding. In 1908 I'm sure it must have been a weird coincidence that fluorine and chlorine were similar, then we found the evidence to understand why that was.
I suppose we have years of stock to get though before we can get the decent stuff again.
For people who pay, individual items are £9.35, but a season ticket for everything for 12 months is £108. Which is really very inexpensive.
Electronic prescription management is everywhere afaik, and online medical records are also in place, as I think are appointments. I'd be interested to know if any PBers do not have these services available.
Only when we have decided on that can we work out how it needs to select it’s members.
On Capitol Hill AND at the White House.
We seem to have an aversion in this country to thinking things through from first principles.
A legacy of not having had a revolution in over 350 years perhaps.
I'm for a HoL which is consultative, somewhere in the spectrum of House of Expertise to House of Breadth of Experience, and a check and balance on the Commons especially for when the HoC goes nuts.
I very much like Carl Gardner's idea of a limited term (say 10 years) elected core, combined with a perhaps non-voting or limited voting appointed contingent who participate in debates and the work of the House.
I could get why you might complain about my high intensity, unvarying engagement on *the deaths of 20 million people* if this was a website devoted to toast, or lacrosse or "being a milquetoast cuck" but this is not that. This is PB. We talk about massive political issues, and they don't get bigger than this
And, as it happens, I do think about this subject: every day. I google it constantly, and Twitter-search it. Which is probably why I am better informed - it seems to me - than anyone else on here. Is that obsessive? Maniacal? Well, maybe, but again this is the political story of the epoch. 20 million are dead. This is not "any number of things"
PB is disappointingly feeble on this issue
Or a somewhat increased offer plus a decent lump sum. I'd say that the Govt need to avoid locking in an extra 10+% every year from now to the Crack of Doomsday. The RCN have overclaimed IMO, and they are not that far behind on international comparisons.
I am not clear about recruiting pressures, seeing how the workforce has grown quite significantly.
I do though think it 80% likely that the Govt with cock up the politics.
I have to ask this, just in case it is (and I realise @Leon is prone to huge exaggeration).
Is masking really at 99% in Japan?
With the proposals around the Lords I think it's correct that what is happening is general opinion has turned against it, which is fine, but its being approached like a mini revolutionary event, so gets treated with the urgency of 'we must do something now!' and not really thinking about.
If there was to be a genuine review, all options on the table approach, to a second chamber after the next election, I'm pretty confident the Lords would either end up elected or we'd do away with a second chamber altogether. And all the details of purpose and form would naturally form as part of that process. But since its already been decided what the outcome should be, it paradoxically makes it more awkward to try to figure out that purpose and form, since you are trying to make it fit into what you already decided.
No, really, I don't often exaggerate (I hyperbolise: a different thing). All the evidence on Twitter says extremely high masking: in the high 90s percent
It is beginning to send people rather mad with sadness:
"I don’t know how you people deal with seeing nothing but masked faces on a daily basis, because I seem to have forgotten how to.
I went out for the first time since last Saturday when I returned to Japan and had an instant anxiety attack and started crying in the middle of a busy road."
"I walked 35 min to a thrift shop and only saw two maskless faces other than mine. It’s almost Christmas 2023.
I feel like I’m living in hell. This is agony. I can’t take it anymore.
Leaving Japan would mean having to brake it off with my loving husband.
I want to die."
https://twitter.com/MorticiaBlom/status/1604049724725952512?s=20&t=oPiVQmIzzPDTrPTXmWneMQ
In politics we see a similar thing with a hyper focus on small details, pedantry even, rather than tackling the big problems even when it is obvious. Only the obsessives care about systemic incompetence and corruption, about housing crises, and failing education etc. Most people barely notice, day to day.
XR would say that attitude is a key reason they need to act like loons, to force attention on another issue killing millions which most people don't even think about.
I do appreciate you being indirect though, as we both know being a milquetoast cuck is my personal brand.
Not that you’ll notice, but I hear that the locals speak a very odd, archaic version of Danish. Historically, Bornholm was part of Skåne, and like its home province, plus Blekinge, Halland and (Norwegian) Bohuslen and Trøndelag, it was transferred to Sweden under the 1658 Treaty of Roskilde. However, Bornholm and Trøndelag almost immediately revolted and returned to their original countries (respectively Denmark and Norway). So, Bornholm Danish is the only surviving fragmentary dialect of the once extensive eastern Danish linguistic region.
(I won’t delight you with the idiosyncrasies of Skånska.)
It's always all or nothing.
The Russians are still clinging to the hope that they can do a Khadyrov Senior style conversion on Zaluzhny if they can get Zelensky out of the way. Gen. Zaluzhny is very close to Gen. Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff in Russia and he's viewed as clubbable and in a way that Zelensky isn't.
https://www.economist.com/zaluzhny-profile?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content
But matters are even worse here, so much worse that some of you may want to sit down for this: In the summer it is not unusual to see East Asian women, especially older women, wearing hats to protect their faces from the sun!
(Full disclosure: This morning started with freezing rain and turned to snow. When I went out to get a newspaper about an hour ago I put on a red (for Christmas) balaclava -- and pulled the bottom part up over my mouth and nose! I hope that confession didn't shock too many of you.)
Or have you considered that Russian media may be telling the kind of stories that Goebbels loved - the ones about how the Americans and the English and the Russians would all start fighting each other. Real soon. While the war got to the fashionable suburbs of Berlin…