Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
You would have thought that a supposed seat of learning, even if determined to be as politically correct as possible, would at least do the research.
And why is "common person" acceptable, and "normal person" not ?
I have some sympathy with reasonable efforts not to be offensive, but this is just stupid (Latin root, stupefacio - of which they appear also to be unaware).
Apparently it’s not the meaning of the wire it phase. It’s the misinterpretation that is possible. So calling someone a blackguard is not acceptable because someone with no understanding of the word might think…
Like "niggardly"?
That reminds me of the story a couple of years ago where a college professor teaching an international business class, got onto do and don'ts in China and explained in China you will hear the word nèi ge all the time. You must not be offended by it, as it is simply the most common filler word equivalent to um in English.
To which some students reacted by complaining that they could "not continue this course than have to endure the emotional exhaustion of having a teacher who ignores diversity and cultural sensitivities"...
Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
Though to be fair to them, it's fighter jockspeak, so the double entendre is almost certainly intentional.
There's "balls up" (ships hoist 3 balls to show they are aground) and freezing the balls off a brass monkey (transparently ludicrous story about naval shot) so a whole subgenre of iffy etymologies proving balls doesn't mean balls in contexts where it actually does. Or it pretty soon migrates to that meaning if it didn't start there.
Hmm, interesting chatter from some commodities people I know that Dutch gas trading markets are looking at moving to London within weeks. It's a huge market, I wonder how the EU will try and halt the move, not sure that they can.
Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
You would have thought that a supposed seat of learning, even if determined to be as politically correct as possible, would at least do the research.
And why is "common person" acceptable, and "normal person" not ?
I have some sympathy with reasonable efforts not to be offensive, but this is just stupid (Latin root, stupefacio - of which they appear also to be unaware).
Apparently it’s not the meaning of the wire it phase. It’s the misinterpretation that is possible. So calling someone a blackguard is not acceptable because someone with no understanding of the word might think…
Like "niggardly"?
That reminds me of the story a couple of years ago where a college professor teaching an international business class, got onto do and don'ts in China and explained in China you will hear the word nèi ge all the time. You must not be offended by it, as it is simply the most common filler word equivalent to um in English.
To which some students reacted by complaining that they could "not continue this course than have to endure the emotional exhaustion of having a teacher who ignores diversity and cultural sensitivities"...
I remember when I was in America I think 2006 and I talked about London hotels and I mentioned the Mandarin Oriental.
Apparently the O word is very offensive in the states.
Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
You would have thought that a supposed seat of learning, even if determined to be as politically correct as possible, would at least do the research.
And why is "common person" acceptable, and "normal person" not ?
I have some sympathy with reasonable efforts not to be offensive, but this is just stupid (Latin root, stupefacio - of which they appear also to be unaware).
Apparently it’s not the meaning of the wire it phase. It’s the misinterpretation that is possible. So calling someone a blackguard is not acceptable because someone with no understanding of the word might think…
Like "niggardly"?
That reminds me of the story a couple of years ago where a college professor teaching an international business class, got onto do and don'ts in China and explained in China you will hear the word nèi ge all the time. You must not be offended by it, as it is simply the most common filler word equivalent to um in English.
To which some students reacted by complaining that they could "not continue this course than have to endure the emotional exhaustion of having a teacher who ignores diversity and cultural sensitivities"...
I remember when I was in America I think 2006 and I talked about London hotels and I mentioned the Mandarin Oriental.
Apparently the O word is very offensive in the states.
You have to wonder if there is a hint of trying to 'break the Tories' about all these strikes. Not the main reason obviously, but lurking, round the edges..
I saw some Socialist Worker placards next to the GMB flags when I went past Middlewood ambulance station earlier.
The SW try to insert themselves into any mass uprising going - Entryism is all they know.
SWP have been doing this for decades. If there is a strike, a picket or a demo, the SWP will drop off a lot of placards. 99 per cent of the people there will not have their own placards or banners, so will happily hold up one from that convenient pile just over there.
You have to wonder if there is a hint of trying to 'break the Tories' about all these strikes. Not the main reason obviously, but lurking, round the edges..
For hilarity, this is coming close to the Google executive sacked for using offensive words, when he read out some offensive words in a meeting about offensive words.
Hmm, interesting chatter from some commodities people I know that Dutch gas trading markets are looking at moving to London within weeks. It's a huge market, I wonder how the EU will try and halt the move, not sure that they can.
Following Shell?
Guess it's what happens when you try to Greta Thunberg your energy sector out of existence.
Study finds AI assistants help developers produce code that's more likely to be buggy At the same time, tools like Github Copilot and Facebook InCoder make developers believe their code is sound https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/21/ai_assistants_bad_code/
@rcs1000 is a big fan of Copilot iirc so if you want to hack into his company...
Hmm, interesting chatter from some commodities people I know that Dutch gas trading markets are looking at moving to London within weeks. It's a huge market, I wonder how the EU will try and halt the move, not sure that they can.
That will be proof that the evil Brexiteers are hell bent on destroying the planet by going soft on the fossil fuel industry.
"A Glaswegian chef credited with inventing the chicken tikka masala has died, aged 77.
Ali Ahmed Aslam is said to have come up with the dish in the 1970s when a customer asked if there was a way of making his chicken tikka less dry.
His solution was to add a creamy tomato sauce, in some versions of the story a can of tomato soup.
His death was announced by his Shish Mahal restaurant which closed for 48 hours as a mark of respect.
Known to friends and customers as "Mr Ali" he was born in Pakistan but moved with his family to Glasgow as a young boy before opening Shish Mahal in Glasgow's west end in 1964. "
Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
Though to be fair to them, it's fighter jockspeak, so the double entendre is almost certainly intentional.
There's "balls up" (ships hoist 3 balls to show they are aground) and freezing the balls off a brass monkey (transparently ludicrous story about naval shot) so a whole subgenre of iffy etymologies proving balls doesn't mean balls in contexts where it actually does. Or it pretty soon migrates to that meaning if it didn't start there.
Iyt occurs in a boxing book of 1947 as the earliest I could find on Google. So I suspect testes are indeed meant.
"A Glaswegian chef credited with inventing the chicken tikka masala has died, aged 77.
Ali Ahmed Aslam is said to have come up with the dish in the 1970s when a customer asked if there was a way of making his chicken tikka less dry.
His solution was to add a creamy tomato sauce, in some versions of the story a can of tomato soup.
His death was announced by his Shish Mahal restaurant which closed for 48 hours as a mark of respect.
Known to friends and customers as "Mr Ali" he was born in Pakistan but moved with his family to Glasgow as a young boy before opening Shish Mahal in Glasgow's west end in 1964. "
Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
You would have thought that a supposed seat of learning, even if determined to be as politically correct as possible, would at least do the research.
And why is "common person" acceptable, and "normal person" not ?
I have some sympathy with reasonable efforts not to be offensive, but this is just stupid (Latin root, stupefacio - of which they appear also to be unaware).
Apparently it’s not the meaning of the wire it phase. It’s the misinterpretation that is possible. So calling someone a blackguard is not acceptable because someone with no understanding of the word might think…
Like "niggardly"?
I had to look up blackguard's origin, an exercise which showed up the danger of being autocorrected to black guardsman. I don't think the right to use it, or niggardly, are hills to die on.
If real GDP is 5.5% smaller then on average real incomes will be around 5.5% smaller by hook or by crook. Other factors like strikes and triple locks simply redistribute the smaller cake to different sized slices unless everybody's real income also falls by 5.5%.
"A Glaswegian chef credited with inventing the chicken tikka masala has died, aged 77.
Ali Ahmed Aslam is said to have come up with the dish in the 1970s when a customer asked if there was a way of making his chicken tikka less dry.
His solution was to add a creamy tomato sauce, in some versions of the story a can of tomato soup.
His death was announced by his Shish Mahal restaurant which closed for 48 hours as a mark of respect.
Known to friends and customers as "Mr Ali" he was born in Pakistan but moved with his family to Glasgow as a young boy before opening Shish Mahal in Glasgow's west end in 1964. "
"A Glaswegian chef credited with inventing the chicken tikka masala has died, aged 77.
Ali Ahmed Aslam is said to have come up with the dish in the 1970s when a customer asked if there was a way of making his chicken tikka less dry.
His solution was to add a creamy tomato sauce, in some versions of the story a can of tomato soup.
His death was announced by his Shish Mahal restaurant which closed for 48 hours as a mark of respect.
Known to friends and customers as "Mr Ali" he was born in Pakistan but moved with his family to Glasgow as a young boy before opening Shish Mahal in Glasgow's west end in 1964. "
Study finds AI assistants help developers produce code that's more likely to be buggy At the same time, tools like Github Copilot and Facebook InCoder make developers believe their code is sound https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/21/ai_assistants_bad_code/
@rcs1000 is a big fan of Copilot iirc so if you want to hack into his company...
Copy and pasta autocomplete can cause coding errors?
Filed under “Coding mistakes that are older than me”
The original version of that was using copied cards in a punch card deck, to speed up coding boring stuff. But copying a bit too literally in the wrong places.
Except the balls being referred to have nothing to do with your testicles, it comes from the ball shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, where balls to the wall was to push the plane to maximum speed analogous to pedal to the metal for cars...
You would have thought that a supposed seat of learning, even if determined to be as politically correct as possible, would at least do the research.
And why is "common person" acceptable, and "normal person" not ?
I have some sympathy with reasonable efforts not to be offensive, but this is just stupid (Latin root, stupefacio - of which they appear also to be unaware).
Apparently it’s not the meaning of the wire it phase. It’s the misinterpretation that is possible. So calling someone a blackguard is not acceptable because someone with no understanding of the word might think…
Like "niggardly"?
That reminds me of the story a couple of years ago where a college professor teaching an international business class, got onto do and don'ts in China and explained in China you will hear the word nèi ge all the time. You must not be offended by it, as it is simply the most common filler word equivalent to um in English.
To which some students reacted by complaining that they could "not continue this course than have to endure the emotional exhaustion of having a teacher who ignores diversity and cultural sensitivities"...
I remember when I was in America I think 2006 and I talked about London hotels and I mentioned the Mandarin Oriental.
Apparently the O word is very offensive in the states.
Yes. About on same level in USA, as visiting Chinatown using Charlie Chan accent & dialogue to communicate with the Inscrutables.
You have to wonder if there is a hint of trying to 'break the Tories' about all these strikes. Not the main reason obviously, but lurking, round the edges..
I don't think it takes a conspiracy theorist to think that for perennial agitators at the core that is a enticing element and motivation.
But it wouldn't gain any traction as a primary motivation with the public.
"A Glaswegian chef credited with inventing the chicken tikka masala has died, aged 77.
Ali Ahmed Aslam is said to have come up with the dish in the 1970s when a customer asked if there was a way of making his chicken tikka less dry.
His solution was to add a creamy tomato sauce, in some versions of the story a can of tomato soup.
His death was announced by his Shish Mahal restaurant which closed for 48 hours as a mark of respect.
Known to friends and customers as "Mr Ali" he was born in Pakistan but moved with his family to Glasgow as a young boy before opening Shish Mahal in Glasgow's west end in 1964. "
What a legend. Not many can have had such an impact on British culture.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
Heard that one before. I'm not sure it is quite true yet though, as whilst reform have risen in the polls its not that massive compared to past Farage efforts. It's Borisites he's afraid of (even though he is one himself).
You have to wonder if there is a hint of trying to 'break the Tories' about all these strikes. Not the main reason obviously, but lurking, round the edges..
I don't think it takes a conspiracy theorist to think that for perennial agitators at the core that is a enticing element and motivation.
But it wouldn't gain any traction as a primary motivation with the public.
Do you feel good when you think about red agitators? Or if not "good", then do you enjoy the emotion?
Why would a "perennial agitator" need enticement to want to "break the Tories"?
You have to wonder if there is a hint of trying to 'break the Tories' about all these strikes. Not the main reason obviously, but lurking, round the edges..
I don't think it takes a conspiracy theorist to think that for perennial agitators at the core that is a enticing element and motivation.
But it wouldn't gain any traction as a primary motivation with the public.
Do you feel good when you think about red agitators? Or if not "good", then do you enjoy the emotion?
Why would a "perennial agitator" need enticement to want to "break the Tories"?
I don't understand you're first question. I don't think it is controversial to accept that hardcore union activists are very politically motivated, on top of the causes of standing up for their members. As to ths second para, such people don't need enticing to want that, but the possibility it might actually help achieve it this time will help sustain enthusiasm for the action, as even they can lag after awhile. Regular union people and public supporters will be motivated enough, or not, by the action itself.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. I exclude them.
What?
The rules today are: heart attacks yes, strokes and bone-breaking falls we might come out or not. The entire tory voting demographic is petrified.
Top tip for over 60s, read up on heart attack symptoms and tell 999 that's what you have got. Even if it's obviously a compound femur fracture.
Okay. If that is your metric, then consider the other end of the scale. Imagine if the Tory-voting over-60 "I'm all right, Jacks" all felt calm, not scared of anything, not in a tizzy at all but content and serene. "Isn't life great? Have a glass of wine. It's so satisfying to think we will probably stay hale and hearty until we're at least 95 nowadays." Would they vote Tory to say thank you, Conservative party, thank you, world? Many of them wouldn't bother voting.
Their current agitation with fear ("petrified" isn't the right word) is an intensification of their normal state. It will make them even more raving as Tories than they usually are.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
There’s a methodology which this professor uses which compares the UK to peer economies. I’m not saying it’s gospel, but at least there’s a methodology.
Of course some people don’t believe it, they are too busy protesting too much about pegging on here. Nevertheless it’s good to get a decent estimate of the undeniable damage to the UK economy which has lowered everyone’s wages and helped deliver higher taxes.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
There’s a methodology which this professor uses which compares the UK to peer economies. I’m not saying it’s gospel, but at least there’s a methodology.
Of course some people don’t believe it, they are too busy protesting too much about pegging on here. Nevertheless it’s good to get a decent estimate of the undeniable damage to the UK economy which has lowered everyone’s wages and helped deliver higher taxes.
I'm sure its reasonably accurate, but someone could pluck a similar figure out of the aether and be just as believed, so the detailed work will only really be appreciated by those undertaking historical analysis.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
What it does remind us of is the importance of the size of the economy. The correct answer to the stupid question "what tax would you raise to pay for that?" is that economic growth and contraction are far more significant.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
Even in 50 years I cannot think of anyone else to add in that timeframe as significant. Even Cameron, Brown or Wilson (the latter was most influential in the late 1960s)
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
50 years ago, Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The chap who took us into Europe. That must count for something.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
Yep. The founding father of Brexit Britain. The person who embodies its spirit better than any other. Except perhaps Nick Ferrari.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
Even in 50 years I cannot think of anyone else to add in that timeframe as significant. Even Cameron, Brown or Wilson (the latter was most influential in the late 1960s)
I'll give you significant.
Whether that significance is good or bad, and whether it is something the UK embraces or shuffles awkardly towards reversing (in part if not in full) remains to be seen.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
Even in 50 years I cannot think of anyone else to add in that timeframe as significant. Even Cameron, Brown or Wilson (the latter was most influential in the late 1960s)
Lee Harvey Oswald was pretty influential in US politics. It is not necessarily a good thing.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
An 'independent' government agency deciding pay for hundreds of thousands, with no reference to supply/demand, is such a laughably non-market process that it feels better suited to Soviet Russia than something the Conservatives should be trying to hide behind.
For as long as wages are decided centrally, it's a battle between unions and the government to agree and come to a compromise. I'd prefer they were negotiated on an individual level with each Trust, which I suspect might actually end up raising wages as competition sets in.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
I’m curious about the following -
- it is stated that there is a shortage of nursing staff and doctors. - the numbers of both have apparently gone up. - What is the shortfall? - is the shortfall concentrated anywhere? - What is the cause of the shortfall?
On the last, I have heard large scale sickness among staff being mentioned. Is that the actual problem?
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. I exclude them.
What?
The rules today are: heart attacks yes, strokes and bone-breaking falls we might come out or not. The entire tory voting demographic is petrified.
Top tip for over 60s, read up on heart attack symptoms and tell 999 that's what you have got. Even if it's obviously a compound femur fracture.
Okay. If that is your metric, then consider the other end of the scale. Imagine if the Tory-voting over-60 "I'm all right, Jacks" all felt calm, not scared of anything, not in a tizzy at all but content and serene. "Isn't life great? Have a glass of wine. It's so satisfying to think we will probably stay hale and hearty until we're at least 95 nowadays." Would they vote Tory to say thank you, Conservative party, thank you, world? Many of them wouldn't bother voting.
Their current agitation with fear ("petrified" isn't the right word) is an intensification of their normal state. It will make them even more raving as Tories than they usually are.
But of course they are scared, of wealth and inheritance taxes and paying for care homes. That always underlies the content and serenity.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
An 'independent' government agency deciding pay for hundreds of thousands, with no reference to supply/demand, is such a laughably non-market process that it feels better suited to Soviet Russia than something the Conservatives should be trying to hide behind.
For as long as wages are decided centrally, it's a battle between unions and the government to agree and come to a compromise. I'd prefer they were negotiated on an individual level with each Trust, which I suspect might actually end up raising wages as competition sets in.
Why do you think, right from the founding of the NHS, central control of wages was mandated?
A very small number of commentators of the 1945 government were shocked that when the government nationalised industries, former Union men were at the forefront of holding back wages in the newly state run enterprises.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
As Mishal Husain pointed out to a government minister earlier today, the government have refused to recognise the conclusion s of four independent pay reviews this year. All four of those reported after the significant rise in inflation - unlike the nurses' pay review. It would be the simplest thing for them to say circumstances have changed we need to look again.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
In the remit letter to the chair of the NHS Pay Review Body, Health Secretary Steve Barclay said the body should take into account when forming recommendations:
the NHS budget which has been set for the next three years the government's inflation target
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
The pay review body members and its terms of reference are both set by the government, and their purpose is to provide advice to the government on what a pay settlement should be, given the government's aims for overall affordability, inflation prevention, retention of staff, etc. Nobody is bound by the advice, including the government (this is explicitly stated on the government's own page describing the pay review bodies). In other words, it's an arm of the government and part of the process by which the government figures out what its pay offer is, nothing more. (It's also a convenient political shield for ministers to distance themselves from unpopular pay deals, of course.)
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. I exclude them.
What?
The rules today are: heart attacks yes, strokes and bone-breaking falls we might come out or not. The entire tory voting demographic is petrified.
Top tip for over 60s, read up on heart attack symptoms and tell 999 that's what you have got. Even if it's obviously a compound femur fracture.
Okay. If that is your metric, then consider the other end of the scale. Imagine if the Tory-voting over-60 "I'm all right, Jacks" all felt calm, not scared of anything, not in a tizzy at all but content and serene. "Isn't life great? Have a glass of wine. It's so satisfying to think we will probably stay hale and hearty until we're at least 95 nowadays." Would they vote Tory to say thank you, Conservative party, thank you, world? Many of them wouldn't bother voting.
Their current agitation with fear ("petrified" isn't the right word) is an intensification of their normal state. It will make them even more raving as Tories than they usually are.
But of course they are scared, of wealth and inheritance taxes and paying for care homes. That always underlies the content and serenity.
Actually only of wealth taxes, the 45 to 65 year olds with home owning parents, especially in London and the Home counties, are more petrified of inheritance taxes and paying for social care as they are the ones set to inherit!
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
I’m curious about the following -
- it is stated that there is a shortage of nursing staff and doctors. - the numbers of both have apparently gone up. - What is the shortfall? - is the shortfall concentrated anywhere? - What is the cause of the shortfall?
On the last, I have heard large scale sickness among staff being mentioned. Is that the actual problem?
Jeremy Hunt did explain that when he increased the number of hospital nurses, it turned out to be at the expense of community and mental health nursing. Hunt's book Zero is a fascinating account of what he did and why it often did not help, and there is still time to put it on your Christmas list.
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
In the remit letter to the chair of the NHS Pay Review Body, Health Secretary Steve Barclay said the body should take into account when forming recommendations:
the NHS budget which has been set for the next three years the government's inflation target
Ah, OK, I didn't realise that. But I gather from the comments by Ratters and jamesdoyle that the answers to (b) and (c) are yes.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
50 years ago, Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The chap who took us into Europe. That must count for something.
It may have done 10 years ago, it doesn't now Farage and Johnson ensured we left the EU and destroyed Heath's main legacy
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
50 years ago, Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The chap who took us into Europe. That must count for something.
It may have done 10 years ago, it doesn't now Farage and Johnson ensured we left the EU and destroyed Heath's main legacy
Yes but for Farage and Boris to make such a deal of taking us out (and also for Thatcher to create the single market) we needed to be in Europe in the first place. Ted Heath also falls within the 50 year time frame.
Notably the article notes Crick named Farage amongst the 5 most influential British politicians of the last 50 years. Alongside Thatcher, Blair, Johnson and Salmond
50 years is a long time. 20 years, definitely.
50 years ago, Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The chap who took us into Europe. That must count for something.
It may have done 10 years ago, it doesn't now Farage and Johnson ensured we left the EU and destroyed Heath's main legacy
Yes but for Farage and Boris to make such a deal of taking us out (and also for Thatcher to create the single market) we needed to be in Europe in the first place. Ted Heath also falls within the 50 year time frame.
Yes, so it was a legacy before 2016 it isn't now the UK has left the EU (the successor to the EEC Heath took us into)
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Ah, OK, I didn't realise that. But I gather from the comments by Ratters and jamesdoyle that the answers to (b) and (c) are yes.
It's not very surprising that if the government tells the pay review board "produce recommendations that fulfill our aims and requirements" then the board is going to come up with something the government is OK with and the union rather less so.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Ah, OK, I didn't realise that. But I gather from the comments by Ratters and jamesdoyle that the answers to (b) and (c) are yes.
It's not very surprising that if the government tells the pay review board "produce recommendations that fulfill our aims and requirements" then the board is going to come up with something the government is OK with and the union rather less so.
As a taxpayer my starting requirement is that we can hire somewhere near the sufficient number of nurses, and other staff, for the service to operate effectively. It is quite clear that is a higher number than the independent review body came up with.
It really does not matter what they think or ministers think, if not enough people are willing to work for that to get the job done. Pay still has to go up.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
The Tories are absolutely loving these strikes - Tories in the government, in the party, and in the sympathiser base.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
What is clear is that they have picked a fight with the NHS heroes they had us clapping for, they have repulsed so many people, and will look like pillocks when they uturn and start to negotiate.
The trouble is that the already very unpopular government has decided to pick a fight with the very people we were out on the streets clapping less than 3 years ago.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Interesting coincidental chopice of phrase there.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body (b) the government has accepted its recommendations (c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
In the remit letter to the chair of the NHS Pay Review Body, Health Secretary Steve Barclay said the body should take into account when forming recommendations:
the NHS budget which has been set for the next three years the government's inflation target
Ah, OK, I didn't realise that. But I gather from the comments by Ratters and jamesdoyle that the answers to (b) and (c) are yes.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
Do you really think it's plausible that Brexit has had a similar impact on the UK as economy as sanctions have had on Russia?
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
Do you really think it's plausible that Brexit has had a similar impact on the UK as economy as sanctions have had on Russia?
No but to an extent we are comparing apples and oranges. Russia has been raking in money from oil and gas exports in particular, and can't spend it on very much owing to sanctions.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
Do you really think it's plausible that Brexit has had a similar impact on the UK as economy as sanctions have had on Russia?
I'm guessing that neither will have been positive.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
Do you really think it's plausible that Brexit has had a similar impact on the UK as economy as sanctions have had on Russia?
Sure, why not?
Brexit has taken 5 years to deliver what Russia has experienced in 1.
But the order of magnitude is the same.
I’ve no idea - none at all - why the usual suspects might want to dispute it.
Another way to read this poll is that, bar the top three (firefighters, ambulance drivers and nurses), 40%+ of people oppose the strikes.
So what you might say? Well, Sunak and the Tories need to get back the 2019 voters who have deserted. There is probably quite a strong overlap between those voters and those who oppose the strikes.
As for the ones who support the strikes, purely anecdotal but, in our 60+ strong running group, which is a good cross-section of different types, political views etc, those who back the strikes are those who overwhelmingly work in the public sector. The private sector types, even those who are unlikely to vote Tory, have a much less positive view of the strikers.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Another way to read this poll is that, bar the top three (firefighters, ambulance drivers and nurses), 40%+ of people oppose the strikes.
So what you might say? Well, Sunak and the Tories need to get back the 2019 voters who have deserted. There is probably quite a strong overlap between those voters and those who oppose the strikes.
As for the ones who support the strikes, purely anecdotal but, in our 60+ strong running group, which is a good cross-section of different types, political views etc, those who back the strikes are those who overwhelmingly work in the public sector. The private sector types, even those who are unlikely to vote Tory, have a much less positive view of the strikers.
Depends how it ends. Beating the unions (Thatcher) is probably a net gain for the Conservatives. Losing to the unions (Heath) isn't.
Whilst we can't tell which way this batch of strikes will end, the second seems more likely. Because as well as strong words, you need meticulous preparation, which doesn't seem to have happened.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Another way to read this poll is that, bar the top three (firefighters, ambulance drivers and nurses), 40%+ of people oppose the strikes.
So what you might say? Well, Sunak and the Tories need to get back the 2019 voters who have deserted. There is probably quite a strong overlap between those voters and those who oppose the strikes.
As for the ones who support the strikes, purely anecdotal but, in our 60+ strong running group, which is a good cross-section of different types, political views etc, those who back the strikes are those who overwhelmingly work in the public sector. The private sector types, even those who are unlikely to vote Tory, have a much less positive view of the strikers.
Depends how it ends. Beating the unions (Thatcher) is probably a net gain for the Conservatives. Losing to the unions (Heath) isn't.
Whilst we can't tell which way this batch of strikes will end, the second seems more likely. Because as well as strong words, you need meticulous preparation, which doesn't seem to have happened.
As with most of the Tory self inflicted wounds we do know how this ends because of supply and demand. Something free market Tories have completely either misunderstood or forgotten about.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
What’s the bogus point?
"the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK."
Using rather dodgy stats. Exactly the sort of stuff Brexiteers loved to do...
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
What’s the bogus point?
"the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK."
Using rather dodgy stats. Exactly the sort of stuff Brexiteers loved to do...
What’s dodgy about them? As in, do you have specific critiques of them such that you think they might be out by orders of magnitude?
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Yeah, but you would say that.
Even before this latest report, the methodology behind their fictitious Doppelgänger UK had been called into question.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
What’s the bogus point?
"the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK."
Using rather dodgy stats. Exactly the sort of stuff Brexiteers loved to do...
What’s dodgy about them? As in, do you have specific critiques of them such that you think they might be out by orders of magnitude?
You just don’t like the comparison, that’s all.
I hate to break it to you, but I voted remain. So think agian...
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
I also suspect the very high oil and gas prices and therefore profits may be masking the real extent of contractions elsewhere.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
What’s the bogus point?
"the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK."
Using rather dodgy stats. Exactly the sort of stuff Brexiteers loved to do...
What’s dodgy about them? As in, do you have specific critiques of them such that you think they might be out by orders of magnitude?
You just don’t like the comparison, that’s all.
I hate to break it to you, but I voted remain. So think agian...
I know you did. You still don’t like the comparison, though.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
I also suspect the very high oil and gas prices and therefore profits may be masking the real extent of contractions elsewhere.
As far as I know, and I am leaning on people who are much more interested in the Russian economy than me, the main issue is the lack of import ability for key Western technology.
Otherwise, yes, the sanctions haven’t themselves unduly damaged Russian ability to sell their main moneymaker.
Russia’s economy has contracted 4% this year I think, so the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK.
Something to think about.
I suspect the Russian economy has much further to fall. And I wouldn't trust their figures either.
Sure. (Not their figures, btw).
The problem is apparently that Russia is not publishing a lot of data it usually does, which means there is an awful lot of guesswork going on about the state of their economy. Although it could be argued that not publishing data is not a positive indicator...
There’s no problem unless you want to make one. My post did not assert mathematical exactitude.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
So you were 'asserting' the same sort of 'mathematical exactitude' to make the sort of bogus point that the Brexiteers so loved.
What’s the bogus point?
"the full Brexit effect is “worth” about a year and a bit of international sanctions being imposed on the UK."
Using rather dodgy stats. Exactly the sort of stuff Brexiteers loved to do...
What’s dodgy about them? As in, do you have specific critiques of them such that you think they might be out by orders of magnitude?
You just don’t like the comparison, that’s all.
I hate to break it to you, but I voted remain. So think agian...
I know you did. You still don’t like the comparison, though.
Ah, I forgot your much-heralded (and seemingly faulty) mind-reading skills.
Comments
To which some students reacted by complaining that they could
"not continue this course than have to endure the emotional exhaustion of having a teacher who ignores diversity and cultural sensitivities"...
Apparently the O word is very offensive in the states.
The company plans to invest more than $3 billion by 2026.
https://insideevs.com/news/627369/lges-upgrade-ochang-battery-plant-korea/
Just the latest last of many such announcements this year.
(And unlike Britvolt, most will get built.)
When all the new 4680 format battery plants start volume production, prices will drop significantly.
For hilarity, this is coming close to the Google executive sacked for using offensive words, when he read out some offensive words in a meeting about offensive words.
Guess it's what happens when you try to Greta Thunberg your energy sector out of existence.
Is it now dead? Or is the lobotomised slug Grant Shapps being called to heel?
At the same time, tools like Github Copilot and Facebook InCoder make developers believe their code is sound
https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/21/ai_assistants_bad_code/
@rcs1000 is a big fan of Copilot iirc so if you want to hack into his company...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-64055639
"A Glaswegian chef credited with inventing the chicken tikka masala has died, aged 77.
Ali Ahmed Aslam is said to have come up with the dish in the 1970s when a customer asked if there was a way of making his chicken tikka less dry.
His solution was to add a creamy tomato sauce, in some versions of the story a can of tomato soup.
His death was announced by his Shish Mahal restaurant which closed for 48 hours as a mark of respect.
Known to friends and customers as "Mr Ali" he was born in Pakistan but moved with his family to Glasgow as a young boy before opening Shish Mahal in Glasgow's west end in 1964. "
https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1605512211970985985
https://twitter.com/CER_EU/status/1605474579383832577
Filed under “Coding mistakes that are older than me”
The original version of that was using copied cards in a punch card deck, to speed up coding boring stuff. But copying a bit too literally in the wrong places.
But it wouldn't gain any traction as a primary motivation with the public.
Some Tory commentators, though, are prone to weeing themselves at the first sign of trouble. (This is because they can't cope with people standing up to them, or with not always being in a better position than the "scum" because of how awfully hard they work who their parents are). Such people are the biggest whingers out. I exclude them.
The government will soon look strong. They'll probably want a conflicted Christmas first. Propaganda is about contrast and emotion. EMOTION.
The government have been playing this well so far, as is clear to those who understand what's happening.
The rules today are: heart attacks yes, strokes and bone-breaking falls we might come out or not. The entire tory voting demographic is petrified.
Top tip for over 60s, read up on heart attack symptoms and tell 999 that's what you have got. Even if it's obviously a compound femur fracture.
Why would a "perennial agitator" need enticement to want to "break the Tories"?
Their current agitation with fear ("petrified" isn't the right word) is an intensification of their normal state. It will make them even more raving as Tories than they usually are.
20 years, definitely.
Nurses are and will continue to be far better liked and more trusted than Sunak or Barclay. People's instincts will be to blame the government for the fallout.
That's before you get to the facts of the matter which are a grossly below inflation pay rise for a sector where there are currently staff shortages and high spending on agency cover. And a government that is not interested in sitting down to negotiate a middle ground - treating the offer as take it or leave it, rather than an opening gambit as the RCN are with theirs.
It will all end up with the NHS under even greater strain, the government eventually caving and coming to a compromise deal, and becoming even less popular in the process.
Sometimes I don't think Sunak has much skill at this politics business.
Of course some people don’t believe it, they are too busy protesting too much about pegging on here. Nevertheless it’s good to get a decent estimate of the undeniable damage to the UK economy which has lowered everyone’s wages and helped deliver higher taxes.
However isn't it true that:
(a) there is an independent pay review body
(b) the government has accepted its recommendations
(c) the unions haven't
If all of those things are true then when the unions get their way, that pay review body will be pointless. Sorely the idea of such a body is that both sides are bound by it?
Whether that significance is good or bad, and whether it is something the UK embraces or shuffles awkardly towards reversing (in part if not in full) remains to be seen.
Such is life under the dead end followed by a protracted u-turn party.
For as long as wages are decided centrally, it's a battle between unions and the government to agree and come to a compromise. I'd prefer they were negotiated on an individual level with each Trust, which I suspect might actually end up raising wages as competition sets in.
Something to think about.
- it is stated that there is a shortage of nursing staff and doctors.
- the numbers of both have apparently gone up.
- What is the shortfall?
- is the shortfall concentrated anywhere?
- What is the cause of the shortfall?
On the last, I have heard large scale sickness among staff being mentioned. Is that the actual problem?
A very small number of commentators of the 1945 government were shocked that when the government nationalised industries, former Union men were at the forefront of holding back wages in the newly state run enterprises.
In the remit letter to the chair of the NHS Pay Review Body, Health Secretary Steve Barclay said the body should take into account when forming recommendations:
the NHS budget which has been set for the next three years
the government's inflation target
Brexit is a calamity and Brexiteers are cretins.
Now more than ever.
I'm travelling on a UK internal flight on Friday. Is the border force strike likely to be an issue. Someone was telling me they handle the security?
It really does not matter what they think or ministers think, if not enough people are willing to work for that to get the job done. Pay still has to go up.
Also, Brexit is slow burn whereas Russia will have experienced more of a shock (albeit one that continues).
Interesting comparison though.
Traore says he was given a "rotten banana" in a rubbish bag at a Christmas dinner for the club's players.
"Apart from finding it an offensive gesture, what hurt me the most was to see that most of my team mates who were present were laughing," he said.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/64058150
as hospitals struggle to cope with tidal wave of covid patients"
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1605588402635767818?s=20&t=GyzdGmabWezDUPZBqkTaow
China, Lombardy, Madrid, NYC, Ecuador. Peru, Hong Kong, and back to China. Covid's Three Year World Tour
Brexit has taken 5 years to deliver what Russia has experienced in 1.
But the order of magnitude is the same.
I’ve no idea - none at all - why the usual suspects might want to dispute it.
Another way to read this poll is that, bar the top three (firefighters, ambulance drivers and nurses), 40%+ of people oppose the strikes.
So what you might say? Well, Sunak and the Tories need to get back the 2019 voters who have deserted. There is probably quite a strong overlap between those voters and those who oppose the strikes.
As for the ones who support the strikes, purely anecdotal but, in our 60+ strong running group, which is a good cross-section of different types, political views etc, those who back the strikes are those who overwhelmingly work in the public sector. The private sector types, even those who are unlikely to vote Tory, have a much less positive view of the strikers.
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Whilst we can't tell which way this batch of strikes will end, the second seems more likely. Because as well as strong words, you need meticulous preparation, which doesn't seem to have happened.
IVs in the open air on a mountain!
https://twitter.com/Mos_Translators/status/1605612373393506304?s=20&t=GyzdGmabWezDUPZBqkTaow
https://twitter.com/GundamNorthrop/status/1603841917909110784?s=20&t=GyzdGmabWezDUPZBqkTaow
Bodies in bags:
https://twitter.com/PokkiriVJ3/status/1605634263168479232?s=20&t=GyzdGmabWezDUPZBqkTaow
NEW THREAD
Using rather dodgy stats. Exactly the sort of stuff Brexiteers loved to do...
As in, do you have specific critiques of them such that you think they might be out by orders of magnitude?
You just don’t like the comparison, that’s all.
Otherwise, yes, the sanctions haven’t themselves unduly damaged Russian ability to sell their main moneymaker.