Widening the point a little, does the government have *any* strategy to try and get through these strikes to a period of industrial calm? So far their actions have been deliberately provocative - as if having strikes across large chunks of the country makes the government look good. I think the whizzo idea - likely a few Prime Ministers ago in the summer - was pin the blame on Labour.
So why isn't it working? In part because the public either don't blame the strikers or are openly supportive. And in part because the Tories look so ham-fisted. Several clips doing the round on social media of Tory MPs saying the most stupid things. The "teachers are Bolsheviks!!!" comment by Jonathan Gullis was so dumb that the MP sat just behind him was visibly incredulous as he foamed on.
And the latest scheme, to make striking illegal? There will be a concentration and co-ordination of strikes as the railways managed last week to just shut things down. Which is bound to piss people off, but when the government are already seen as cack-handed and support is with the strikers this seems like a perilous path to take. We still talk about Labour's Winter of Discontent nearly 45 years on. The Tories want their own version to be talked about in the 2060s as a reason not to vote for them?
Sunak is cultivating the strikes. He needs a foe to unite the unhappy Tory tribes. He could solve the strikes in an instant. He doesn’t want to.
I’m torn on whether Sunak is indeed just playing politics on this, or truly bought into the idea from his childhood that Thatcher saved the nation by standing up to strikers. Or simply too weak and uninterested to do anything other than stand and watch his ministers do their own thing.
(a) the Commons votes to suspend him for long enough to trigger a possible recall (b) the recall happens and he loses (c) his supporters portray him as a martyr, and Tory support nationally continues to be anaemic (d) he is selected for a safe seat and returns in triumph (e) he's elected as the next leader after a Tory election defeat
- several big "ifs" in there, but it seems not unthinkable that losing the Commons vote fails to finish him?
I've always had an interest in the Cuban missile crisis, and I researched it for an e-book I had published by Wild Wolf. Very impressed by JFK and his handling of the military. A real leader. Especially as he suffered from a form of Addison's disease.
Kruschev was also a realist and he got what he wanted - the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey. As for Fidel and Che Guevara - mad as a box of frogs, the pair of them.
The Jupiters were obsolete - liquid fueled, so slow to launch, fixed position with no protection and not especially accurate. The lightning strikes causing the Tritium injection to kick off in the warheads was also a bit of a sign…
Which is why McNamara & Kennedy were already phasing them out, like dozens of other nuclear weapons programs.
I know that K presented this as a win - but did the rest of the Soviet leadership really buy that?
Aside: Max Hastings new book 'Abyss' on the Cuban Missile Crisis is brilliant.
479 pages but learnt lots of new things about 1950s/1960s Cuba, America and Russia in it - including how easy it would have been to miscalculate - and there are some interesting lessons for the present day and Ukraine as well.
Chief amongst them: Russia craves respect and tends to dial the rhetoric and fear up to 11, but secretly knows it is outclassed, and the US top brass are ridiculously gung-ho.
Were. A number of them are considerably less so these days.
An important new psychology study from UCL: In this experiment, we manipulated what men believed about their own penis size, relative to others. We gave them false information, stating that the average penis size was larger than it in fact is, reasoning that, on average, these males will feel that relatively and subjectively their own penis was smaller; compared to those told that the average penis size was smaller than true average. We then asked them to rate how much they would like to own a sports car. These facts and questions were buried amongst other items giving information and asking for product ratings, so that our hypothesis was masked from participants. We found that males, and males over 30 in particular, rated sports cars as more desirable when they were made to feel that they had a small penis. https://psyarxiv.com/uy7ph/download
I have a hypothesis related to this and condom sizing, but it is too long and broad to fit into a PB.com comment.
What, like "Condoms come in 5 sizes. In decreasing order, Extra Large, Large, Regular, BMW driver and Porsche driver"?
By refusing to answer, Sunak is effectively saying he goes private? Possibly. Does that also apply to when Tony Blair refused to say if his son had had the MMR vaccine? I always assumed that this was the case there too.
We are, as Heathener likes to say, not the same as Americans. We seem to have a real issue with success* in this country. We like people to do well and then pull them down again, as if the 'story' is all that matters - life as a TV soap opera.
David Cameron's son had much intervention from the NHS, that didn't stop his governments policies laying the foundations for the issues we see today (see John Burn-Murdoch's graphs, or those @Foxy has posted.)
(*Some will say the Sunak is not successful as much of his wealth is through marriage, and this is true, but he is also the PM.)
By refusing to answer, Sunak is effectively saying he goes private? Possibly. Does that also apply to when Tony Blair refused to say if his son had had the MMR vaccine? I always assumed that this was the case there too.
We are, as Heathener likes to say, not the same as Americans. We seem to have a real issue with success* in this country. We like people to do well and then pull them down again, as if the 'story' is all that matters - life as a TV soap opera.
David Cameron's son had much intervention from the NHS, that didn't stop his governments policies laying the foundations for the issues we see today (see John Burn-Murdoch's graphs, or those @Foxy has posted.)
(*Some will say the Sunak is not successful as much of his wealth is through marriage, and this is true, but he is also the PM.)
What a gratuitous insult to the Commonwealth. If King Charles III really does deserve all those medals he wears his first visit should have been to Ukraine.
The King has chosen France for his first state visit, with his arrival planned for March 27 on a trip expected to help restore ties frayed since Brexit, according to French media.
President Macron’s aides said he greatly appreciated Charles’s acceptance of his invitation. The late Queen completed five state visits to France, more than any other country.
“It’s an extremely strong symbol because it will be the first official visit by Charles III,” an adviser to Macron told Le Parisien newspaper. “The event will be happening when the King is not yet crowned, which shows that France is a priority for him.”
By refusing to answer, Sunak is effectively saying he goes private? Possibly. Does that also apply to when Tony Blair refused to say if his son had had the MMR vaccine? I always assumed that this was the case there too.
We are, as Heathener likes to say, not the same as Americans. We seem to have a real issue with success* in this country. We like people to do well and then pull them down again, as if the 'story' is all that matters - life as a TV soap opera.
David Cameron's son had much intervention from the NHS, that didn't stop his governments policies laying the foundations for the issues we see today (see John Burn-Murdoch's graphs, or those @Foxy has posted.)
(*Some will say the Sunak is not successful as much of his wealth is through marriage, and this is true, but he is also the PM.)
He successfully married a very rich woman.
He worked for Goldman Sachs and was partner in a hedge fund so was hardly poor even without his father in law being a billionaire
Widening the point a little, does the government have *any* strategy to try and get through these strikes to a period of industrial calm? So far their actions have been deliberately provocative - as if having strikes across large chunks of the country makes the government look good. I think the whizzo idea - likely a few Prime Ministers ago in the summer - was pin the blame on Labour.
So why isn't it working? In part because the public either don't blame the strikers or are openly supportive. And in part because the Tories look so ham-fisted. Several clips doing the round on social media of Tory MPs saying the most stupid things. The "teachers are Bolsheviks!!!" comment by Jonathan Gullis was so dumb that the MP sat just behind him was visibly incredulous as he foamed on.
And the latest scheme, to make striking illegal? There will be a concentration and co-ordination of strikes as the railways managed last week to just shut things down. Which is bound to piss people off, but when the government are already seen as cack-handed and support is with the strikers this seems like a perilous path to take. We still talk about Labour's Winter of Discontent nearly 45 years on. The Tories want their own version to be talked about in the 2060s as a reason not to vote for them?
Sunak is cultivating the strikes. He needs a foe to unite the unhappy Tory tribes. He could solve the strikes in an instant. He doesn’t want to.
I’m torn on whether Sunak is indeed just playing politics on this, or truly bought into the idea from his childhood that Thatcher saved the nation by standing up to strikers. Or simply too weak and uninterested to do anything other than stand and watch his ministers do their own thing.
Too late to edit the random Leon reference at the top - which was the start of a post on the impressive ChatGPT4...
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
By refusing to answer, Sunak is effectively saying he goes private? Possibly. Does that also apply to when Tony Blair refused to say if his son had had the MMR vaccine? I always assumed that this was the case there too.
We are, as Heathener likes to say, not the same as Americans. We seem to have a real issue with success* in this country. We like people to do well and then pull them down again, as if the 'story' is all that matters - life as a TV soap opera.
David Cameron's son had much intervention from the NHS, that didn't stop his governments policies laying the foundations for the issues we see today (see John Burn-Murdoch's graphs, or those @Foxy has posted.)
(*Some will say the Sunak is not successful as much of his wealth is through marriage, and this is true, but he is also the PM.)
Nah, Americans defer to wealth, we treat people with wealth more as we would everyone else. If they give a rubbish, evasive answer to what should be a simple question for a leading politician, we say that was a bit rubbish and evasive rather than pretending they are better than us.
More than likely so. He does have a wife and 2 daughters who may need a GP occasionally.
I think it fine to say he uses a Private GP. Everyone expects it to be the case, and any use of an NHS one would just be virtue signalling, like when Cameron caught Ryanair for his holiday.
He just needs to emphasise that he is in the privileged position of being able to do so, and wants an equally good service for everyone else via the public system. That is pretty much what he would say for schools.
Starmer should play the ball (the collapse in NHS emergency services) not the man.
Yes, Denis Healey said that long waiting lists were horrible and he wanted to bring them down because people were in agony; if his own wife was in agony and he could afford to stop it by paying for her private care, he would. Seemed reasonable to me, and I was well to the left of Healey.
The missing element with Sunak (apart from the evasion) is that he doesn't give the impression of having a serious medium-term strategy for restoring prompt NHs care.
By refusing to answer, Sunak is effectively saying he goes private? Possibly. Does that also apply to when Tony Blair refused to say if his son had had the MMR vaccine? I always assumed that this was the case there too.
One good reason for Sunak not to answer the private GP question, and for Blair not to answer the MMR question, is that, if they do/did answer, it then becomes a question to be asked of every other Cabinet minister, or indeed MP.
By refusing to answer, and taking the resulting criticism for that refusal, he makes it easier for Hunt, Barclay and the others to ignore such a question themselves. That's actually a pretty decent bit of leadership, to absorb the flak on this issue personally, rather than to expose his team to it.
If British servicemen commit capital crimes when training in Texas, are they at risk of execution?
Yes. It's made very clear when you get your draft that you enjoy no immunity or special treatment from local law enforcement in the US. Hence the arrests on the recent HMS QE trip to Florida when the proud traditions of the RN were upheld with a violent punch up with local cops.
"It takes 4 years to build a ship but 400 years to build a tradition." -- Admiral of the Fleet A. B. Cunningham
Aside: Max Hastings new book 'Abyss' on the Cuban Missile Crisis is brilliant.
479 pages but learnt lots of new things about 1950s/1960s Cuba, America and Russia in it - including how easy it would have been to miscalculate - and there are some interesting lessons for the present day and Ukraine as well.
Chief amongst them: Russia craves respect and tends to dial the rhetoric and fear up to 11, but secretly knows it is outclassed, and the US top brass are ridiculously gung-ho.
Did he include the moment where an admiral was asked what he'd do if a ship ran the blockade?
'We'll hail them and tell them to stop!'
'Will you hail them in Russian or in English?'
'How the hell would I know? I guess we'll hail them in English.'
'What if you hail them in English and they don't speak English?'
'We'll fire a shot across their bows!'
'And if that doesn't stop them?'
'We'll put a shot through their rudder!'*
'And what would happen to the ship?'
'Well, its engine might miss a bit, it might catch fire..'
'Well, I have news for you Admiral. We are not trying to start a war. There will be NO shots fired at ANY Russian ship!'
*Not an expert, but based on what I know of naval gunnery of the period the idea that a shell could reliably hit the rudder of a moving vessel always struck me as highly optimistic.
Yes, that right - Robert McNamara comes out rather well, which is surprising given how royally he messed up Vietnam thereafter.
McNamara ended up taking the heat for the political running (with direct interference from the positions at a micro level) of a stupid war. The only way he could have achieved any credit, would have been to have resigned.
He was a fool regarding the war, and pretty well admitted as much in later life. His 2003 film apologia Fog of War is well worth watching.
The strong advocate most responsible for the debacle, though, was McGeorge Bundy. If intellectual hubris was the administration's greatest weakness, he personified that.
Had Kennedy not been assassinated, it's very likely indeed he would have got out of Vietnam after the '64 election.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Aside: Max Hastings new book 'Abyss' on the Cuban Missile Crisis is brilliant.
479 pages but learnt lots of new things about 1950s/1960s Cuba, America and Russia in it - including how easy it would have been to miscalculate - and there are some interesting lessons for the present day and Ukraine as well.
Chief amongst them: Russia craves respect and tends to dial the rhetoric and fear up to 11, but secretly knows it is outclassed, and the US top brass are ridiculously gung-ho.
Did he include the moment where an admiral was asked what he'd do if a ship ran the blockade?
'We'll hail them and tell them to stop!'
'Will you hail them in Russian or in English?'
'How the hell would I know? I guess we'll hail them in English.'
'What if you hail them in English and they don't speak English?'
'We'll fire a shot across their bows!'
'And if that doesn't stop them?'
'We'll put a shot through their rudder!'*
'And what would happen to the ship?'
'Well, its engine might miss a bit, it might catch fire..'
'Well, I have news for you Admiral. We are not trying to start a war. There will be NO shots fired at ANY Russian ship!'
*Not an expert, but based on what I know of naval gunnery of the period the idea that a shell could reliably hit the rudder of a moving vessel always struck me as highly optimistic.
A bit reminiscent of the railway signalman's interview there? (What would you do if the points were stuck, in a blizzard, two trains on the same line etc - I'd get my dad? Why? He's not seen a train crash...)
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Sunak is a Tory PM, Tory PMs should support private healthcare and reducing pressure on the NHS.
Thatcher unashamedly used private healthcare and said so
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
What a gratuitous insult to the Commonwealth. If King Charles III really does deserve all those medals he wears his first visit should have been to Ukraine.
The King has chosen France for his first state visit, with his arrival planned for March 27 on a trip expected to help restore ties frayed since Brexit, according to French media.
President Macron’s aides said he greatly appreciated Charles’s acceptance of his invitation. The late Queen completed five state visits to France, more than any other country.
“It’s an extremely strong symbol because it will be the first official visit by Charles III,” an adviser to Macron told Le Parisien newspaper. “The event will be happening when the King is not yet crowned, which shows that France is a priority for him.”
He's going to assert that he is the true monarch of France, right?
Well, he is.
Treaty of Troyes.
Now someone is going to say the French broke the treaty. But we are told by Experts that breaking treaties is impossible, wrong and Evul.
So combined with the refugee crisis - a number of recognised humanitarian organisations say that it is unacceptable for refugees to be forced to remain in France - France is clearly a failed state.
So we have a failed state. That has oil. And we all know what that means, children, don’t we?
Strangely enough, I always thought Trump reminded me of Curtis Le May, the most war-like of the General Staff in 1962.
Edit: Mr Malmesbury, indeed, but it gave Mr K an out, I worry that Putin has no way out. And he's rubbish at politics.
Le May was hardline, but I thought that the archives show that it was General Power who was the General Ripper prototype…
General Power : Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Professor William Kaufmann : Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman.
If British servicemen commit capital crimes when training in Texas, are they at risk of execution?
Yes. It's made very clear when you get your draft that you enjoy no immunity or special treatment from local law enforcement in the US. Hence the arrests on the recent HMS QE trip to Florida when the proud traditions of the RN were upheld with a violent punch up with local cops.
"It takes 4 years to build a ship but 400 years to build a tradition." -- Admiral of the Fleet A. B. Cunningham
"I was born in Stoke, but learned how to beat the shit out of people in the Royal Navy."
That's a bit unfair on the Royal Navy. People from Stoke learn how to beat the shit out of people in Hanley...
Then, having mastered the theory, they go to Trentham to perfect the practice.
I was just wondering: has some poor fool intended to go to Henley for the regatta, and ended up watching ducks negotiate the shopping trolleys on the Trent and Mersey Canal in Hanley?
Dunno, but we did have some Swiss family friends visiting when I was little who set out for Stratford and drove to Stafford.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
That’s because he is straight out of the Davos central casting department.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
Widening the point a little, does the government have *any* strategy to try and get through these strikes to a period of industrial calm? So far their actions have been deliberately provocative - as if having strikes across large chunks of the country makes the government look good. I think the whizzo idea - likely a few Prime Ministers ago in the summer - was pin the blame on Labour.
So why isn't it working? In part because the public either don't blame the strikers or are openly supportive. And in part because the Tories look so ham-fisted. Several clips doing the round on social media of Tory MPs saying the most stupid things. The "teachers are Bolsheviks!!!" comment by Jonathan Gullis was so dumb that the MP sat just behind him was visibly incredulous as he foamed on.
And the latest scheme, to make striking illegal? There will be a concentration and co-ordination of strikes as the railways managed last week to just shut things down. Which is bound to piss people off, but when the government are already seen as cack-handed and support is with the strikers this seems like a perilous path to take. We still talk about Labour's Winter of Discontent nearly 45 years on. The Tories want their own version to be talked about in the 2060s as a reason not to vote for them?
Sunak is cultivating the strikes. He needs a foe to unite the unhappy Tory tribes. He could solve the strikes in an instant. He doesn’t want to.
I’m torn on whether Sunak is indeed just playing politics on this, or truly bought into the idea from his childhood that Thatcher saved the nation by standing up to strikers. Or simply too weak and uninterested to do anything other than stand and watch his ministers do their own thing.
It also helps justify his strike legislation. Not sure why he would be motivated by this, but it does. If you see this strike legislation as an EU harmonisation, because our political class are intent on staying in absolute lockstep with the EU, Sunak getting this through parliament as nasty Tory legislation certainly helps Starmer, who would otherwise have had to introduce it himself - a very sticky situation.
What a gratuitous insult to the Commonwealth. If King Charles III really does deserve all those medals he wears his first visit should have been to Ukraine.
The King has chosen France for his first state visit, with his arrival planned for March 27 on a trip expected to help restore ties frayed since Brexit, according to French media.
President Macron’s aides said he greatly appreciated Charles’s acceptance of his invitation. The late Queen completed five state visits to France, more than any other country.
“It’s an extremely strong symbol because it will be the first official visit by Charles III,” an adviser to Macron told Le Parisien newspaper. “The event will be happening when the King is not yet crowned, which shows that France is a priority for him.”
He's going to assert that he is the true monarch of France, right?
Well, he is.
Treaty of Troyes.
Now someone is going to say the French broke the treaty. But we are told by Experts that breaking treaties is impossible, wrong and Evul.
So combined with the refugee crisis - a number of recognised humanitarian organisations say that it is unacceptable for refugees to be forced to remain in France - France is clearly a failed state.
So we have a failed state. That has oil. And we all know what that means, children, don’t we?
Hyfud's tank regiment is being fired up as we speak...
Widening the point a little, does the government have *any* strategy to try and get through these strikes to a period of industrial calm? So far their actions have been deliberately provocative - as if having strikes across large chunks of the country makes the government look good. I think the whizzo idea - likely a few Prime Ministers ago in the summer - was pin the blame on Labour.
So why isn't it working? In part because the public either don't blame the strikers or are openly supportive. And in part because the Tories look so ham-fisted. Several clips doing the round on social media of Tory MPs saying the most stupid things. The "teachers are Bolsheviks!!!" comment by Jonathan Gullis was so dumb that the MP sat just behind him was visibly incredulous as he foamed on.
And the latest scheme, to make striking illegal? There will be a concentration and co-ordination of strikes as the railways managed last week to just shut things down. Which is bound to piss people off, but when the government are already seen as cack-handed and support is with the strikers this seems like a perilous path to take. We still talk about Labour's Winter of Discontent nearly 45 years on. The Tories want their own version to be talked about in the 2060s as a reason not to vote for them?
Sunak is cultivating the strikes. He needs a foe to unite the unhappy Tory tribes. He could solve the strikes in an instant. He doesn’t want to.
I’m torn on whether Sunak is indeed just playing politics on this, or truly bought into the idea from his childhood that Thatcher saved the nation by standing up to strikers. Or simply too weak and uninterested to do anything other than stand and watch his ministers do their own thing.
It also helps justify his strike legislation. Not sure why he would be motivated by this, but it does. If you see this strike legislation as an EU harmonisation, because our political class are intent on staying in absolute lockstep with the EU, Sunak getting this through parliament as nasty Tory legislation certainly helps Starmer, who would otherwise have had to introduce it himself - a very sticky situation.
You mentioned it as EU harmonisation yesterday and I'm not sure anyone else picked up on it, but I had a search and couldn't find anything. Do you have a souce?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Yes I thought the soup kitchen conversation was very poorly reported. Sunak came across as someone who was doing his best to communicate across the divide created by his own privileged upbringing and the increase in homelessness and destitution that the Tories have presided over. His efforts came across as clumsy but well intentioned, and the whole encounter wasn't really as reported. He isn't getting a fair hearing but I think that is a symptom of where we are in the political cycle and a signal that the Tories are heading towards a big defeat.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I've always had an interest in the Cuban missile crisis, and I researched it for an e-book I had published by Wild Wolf. Very impressed by JFK and his handling of the military. A real leader. Especially as he suffered from a form of Addison's disease.
Kruschev was also a realist and he got what he wanted - the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey. As for Fidel and Che Guevara - mad as a box of frogs, the pair of them.
The Jupiters were obsolete - liquid fueled, so slow to launch, fixed position with no protection and not especially accurate. The lightning strikes causing the Tritium injection to kick off in the warheads was also a bit of a sign…
Which is why McNamara & Kennedy were already phasing them out, like dozens of other nuclear weapons programs.
I know that K presented this as a win - but did the rest of the Soviet leadership really buy that?
The story (at least the one I have been presented with) was that the missiles in Turkey represented a first strike capability that Russia had no answer to - it could have been used to knock out the Russian launch sites in western Russia, combined with decapitation strikes on all the major Russian cities in the West.
As such, it represented a dangerous escalation in nuclear tension, as it incentivised the Russians to launch at the first sign of provocation, regardless of reality. Putting missiles on Cuba represented an equivalent ability to strike the US for the Russian leadership.
Removing the missiles from Turkey re-established the status quo, where neither side could launch a pre-emptive strike but both retained retaliatory capability.
This logic seems a bit flawed though: the US had submarine launched missiles by this time which the Russians must have known about. Don’t SLBMS represent exactly the same kind of first strike capability? Maybe the fact that the Turkish missiles were publicly known meant the Russians felt they had to act to avoid being seen as weak in the face of (from their POV) US aggression?
I hadn't seen that quote from General Power - it made me laugh. My e-book was based on the consequences of JFK not being strong enough to over-rule the generals. To think, we used to joke about British Generals.
Fidel wrote to Mr K insisting he start World War Three on behalf of Cuba. Both Kruschev and JFK had fought in WW2 and had no intention of doing so. Che, of course, the hero of student radicals was in favour of Armageddon too.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
If British servicemen commit capital crimes when training in Texas, are they at risk of execution?
Yes. It's made very clear when you get your draft that you enjoy no immunity or special treatment from local law enforcement in the US. Hence the arrests on the recent HMS QE trip to Florida when the proud traditions of the RN were upheld with a violent punch up with local cops.
"It takes 4 years to build a ship but 400 years to build a tradition." -- Admiral of the Fleet A. B. Cunningham
"I was born in Stoke, but learned how to beat the shit out of people in the Royal Navy."
That's a bit unfair on the Royal Navy. People from Stoke learn how to beat the shit out of people in Hanley...
Then, having mastered the theory, they go to Trentham to perfect the practice.
I was just wondering: has some poor fool intended to go to Henley for the regatta, and ended up watching ducks negotiate the shopping trolleys on the Trent and Mersey Canal in Hanley?
Dunno, but we did have some Swiss family friends visiting when I was little who set out for Stratford and drove to Stafford.
When I lived in Leeds, my NZ friends, living in London at the time, nearly took a coach to Leeds Castle to come and visit me...
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
What a gratuitous insult to the Commonwealth. If King Charles III really does deserve all those medals he wears his first visit should have been to Ukraine.
The King has chosen France for his first state visit, with his arrival planned for March 27 on a trip expected to help restore ties frayed since Brexit, according to French media.
President Macron’s aides said he greatly appreciated Charles’s acceptance of his invitation. The late Queen completed five state visits to France, more than any other country.
“It’s an extremely strong symbol because it will be the first official visit by Charles III,” an adviser to Macron told Le Parisien newspaper. “The event will be happening when the King is not yet crowned, which shows that France is a priority for him.”
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
I've always had an interest in the Cuban missile crisis, and I researched it for an e-book I had published by Wild Wolf. Very impressed by JFK and his handling of the military. A real leader. Especially as he suffered from a form of Addison's disease.
Kruschev was also a realist and he got what he wanted - the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey. As for Fidel and Che Guevara - mad as a box of frogs, the pair of them.
The Jupiters were obsolete - liquid fueled, so slow to launch, fixed position with no protection and not especially accurate. The lightning strikes causing the Tritium injection to kick off in the warheads was also a bit of a sign…
Which is why McNamara & Kennedy were already phasing them out, like dozens of other nuclear weapons programs.
I know that K presented this as a win - but did the rest of the Soviet leadership really buy that?
The story (at least the one I have been presented with) was that the missiles in Turkey represented a first strike capability that Russia had no answer to - it could have been used to knock out the Russian launch sites in western Russia, combined with decapitation strikes on all the major Russian cities in the West.
As such, it represented a dangerous escalation in nuclear tension, as it incentivised the Russians to launch at the first sign of provocation, regardless of reality. Putting missiles on Cuba represented an equivalent ability to strike the US for the Russian leadership.
Removing the missiles from Turkey re-established the status quo, where neither side could launch a pre-emptive strike but both retained retaliatory capability.
This logic seems a bit flawed though: the US had submarine launched missiles by this time which the Russians must have known about. Don’t SLBMS represent exactly the same kind of first strike capability? Maybe the fact that the Turkish missiles were publicly known meant the Russians felt they had to act to avoid being seen as weak in the face of (from their POV) US aggression?
Back in 1961/2, I don't think anyone really 'trusted' their few sub-launched ICBMs for a first-strike capability - the first sea-launched ballistic missiles only came into being the year before, and each side only had one or two submarines capable of launching them. ISTR reading that land-based ones were seen as being more effective as maintenance was much easier.
An important new psychology study from UCL: In this experiment, we manipulated what men believed about their own penis size, relative to others. We gave them false information, stating that the average penis size was larger than it in fact is, reasoning that, on average, these males will feel that relatively and subjectively their own penis was smaller; compared to those told that the average penis size was smaller than true average. We then asked them to rate how much they would like to own a sports car. These facts and questions were buried amongst other items giving information and asking for product ratings, so that our hypothesis was masked from participants. We found that males, and males over 30 in particular, rated sports cars as more desirable when they were made to feel that they had a small penis. https://psyarxiv.com/uy7ph/download
I found this an interesting read on the issues with the healthcare system in France. One of their challenges is that it is easy to see a GP in Paris but many areas of France have no GPs at all.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Yes I thought the soup kitchen conversation was very poorly reported. Sunak came across as someone who was doing his best to communicate across the divide created by his own privileged upbringing and the increase in homelessness and destitution that the Tories have presided over. His efforts came across as clumsy but well intentioned, and the whole encounter wasn't really as reported. He isn't getting a fair hearing but I think that is a symptom of where we are in the political cycle and a signal that the Tories are heading towards a big defeat.
I note the Guardian admitted as such and there were letters on the letter page.
The issue for Sunak is just this - he isn't getting a fair hearing, and likely the mythical powers that be (the media barons) have decided that Starmer is the rising star, will be PM in two years time and thus they need to cultivate him and his party. The process is happening - interviews in the Sunday papers with the front benchers (Reeves in the Sunday Times recently). Some of this is reflecting what is happening, but some is driving it too. As Harry knows.
What a gratuitous insult to the Commonwealth. If King Charles III really does deserve all those medals he wears his first visit should have been to Ukraine.
The King has chosen France for his first state visit, with his arrival planned for March 27 on a trip expected to help restore ties frayed since Brexit, according to French media.
President Macron’s aides said he greatly appreciated Charles’s acceptance of his invitation. The late Queen completed five state visits to France, more than any other country.
“It’s an extremely strong symbol because it will be the first official visit by Charles III,” an adviser to Macron told Le Parisien newspaper. “The event will be happening when the King is not yet crowned, which shows that France is a priority for him.”
He's going to assert that he is the true monarch of France, right?
Well, he is.
Treaty of Troyes.
Now someone is going to say the French broke the treaty. But we are told by Experts that breaking treaties is impossible, wrong and Evul.
So combined with the refugee crisis - a number of recognised humanitarian organisations say that it is unacceptable for refugees to be forced to remain in France - France is clearly a failed state.
So we have a failed state. That has oil. And we all know what that means, children, don’t we?
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
If some of our posters are correct, using the NHS is a good route to being seen dead
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Don't be daft. It was a photo-op that went wrong. It was designed to create an image of a fluffy caring Rishi, but instead reenforced the perception that he is specularly out of touch. The problem for Rishi is that this is not a one off.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I found this an interesting read on the issues with the healthcare system in France. One of their challenges is that it is easy to see a GP in Paris but many areas of France have no GPs at all.
I've always had an interest in the Cuban missile crisis, and I researched it for an e-book I had published by Wild Wolf. Very impressed by JFK and his handling of the military. A real leader. Especially as he suffered from a form of Addison's disease.
Kruschev was also a realist and he got what he wanted - the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey. As for Fidel and Che Guevara - mad as a box of frogs, the pair of them.
The Jupiters were obsolete - liquid fueled, so slow to launch, fixed position with no protection and not especially accurate. The lightning strikes causing the Tritium injection to kick off in the warheads was also a bit of a sign…
Which is why McNamara & Kennedy were already phasing them out, like dozens of other nuclear weapons programs.
I know that K presented this as a win - but did the rest of the Soviet leadership really buy that?
The story (at least the one I have been presented with) was that the missiles in Turkey represented a first strike capability that Russia had no answer to - it could have been used to knock out the Russian launch sites in western Russia, combined with decapitation strikes on all the major Russian cities in the West.
As such, it represented a dangerous escalation in nuclear tension, as it incentivised the Russians to launch at the first sign of provocation, regardless of reality. Putting missiles on Cuba represented an equivalent ability to strike the US for the Russian leadership.
Removing the missiles from Turkey re-established the status quo, where neither side could launch a pre-emptive strike but both retained retaliatory capability.
This logic seems a bit flawed though: the US had submarine launched missiles by this time which the Russians must have known about. Don’t SLBMS represent exactly the same kind of first strike capability? Maybe the fact that the Turkish missiles were publicly known meant the Russians felt they had to act to avoid being seen as weak in the face of (from their POV) US aggression?
It would be interesting to compare warming times - which would need some data on Soviet missile warning radar of the time, but I would suspect that a Polaris sub launching in the far North would be hitting Moscow with a lot less warning than a Jupiter from Turkey.
The biggest danger with the Jupiters was that they were so exposed - a very tempting preemptive target. So they increased the risk of a war starting.
Polaris and Minuteman really created the missile gap - in reverse. Which is why the Russians started talking about arms limitation. At one point there was talk for deploying 10,000 Minuteman missiles. As Phase 1….
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Yes I thought the soup kitchen conversation was very poorly reported. Sunak came across as someone who was doing his best to communicate across the divide created by his own privileged upbringing and the increase in homelessness and destitution that the Tories have presided over. His efforts came across as clumsy but well intentioned, and the whole encounter wasn't really as reported. He isn't getting a fair hearing but I think that is a symptom of where we are in the political cycle and a signal that the Tories are heading towards a big defeat.
I note the Guardian admitted as such and there were letters on the letter page.
The issue for Sunak is just this - he isn't getting a fair hearing, and likely the mythical powers that be (the media barons) have decided that Starmer is the rising star, will be PM in two years time and thus they need to cultivate him and his party. The process is happening - interviews in the Sunday papers with the front benchers (Reeves in the Sunday Times recently). Some of this is reflecting what is happening, but some is driving it too. As Harry knows.
Exactly. The whole mood music has shifted and the tune that's playing is the one the band played as the Titanic went down. This is why I think arguments that Labour are going to really struggle to gain a majority are wide of the mark.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Interestingly you still cannot get covid vaccines privately in the UK and there was very little debate about whether people should be able to when it was less available.
The British fair play line seems to be drawn around paying to save time queuing and getting a nicer environment to be treated in is fine, but queue jumping in an emergency is not.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Don't be silly.
Link to an article in one of those papers which on inspection is anti-trans, rather than anti ill thought out silliness which seriously damages or endangers women's rights, children and the genuinely trans. Do this now.
Actually link has to be Times or Telegraph, there's no knowing what's in the Mail.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
I hadn't seen that quote from General Power - it made me laugh. My e-book was based on the consequences of JFK not being strong enough to over-rule the generals. To think, we used to joke about British Generals...
I think it was largely inexperience, rather than lack of strength. Cuba taught Kennedy to trust his own judgment and not to defer to the national security 'experts'.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
And he then gets accused of queue jumping.
He should have just said he used private medical care and had nothing to apologise for.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
So you would outlaw private healthcare (including dentistry) and private schools?
I hadn't seen that quote from General Power - it made me laugh. My e-book was based on the consequences of JFK not being strong enough to over-rule the generals. To think, we used to joke about British Generals.
Fidel wrote to Mr K insisting he start World War Three on behalf of Cuba. Both Kruschev and JFK had fought in WW2 and had no intention of doing so. Che, of course, the hero of student radicals was in favour of Armageddon too.
Le May said that Power was a bit OTT.
Teller said he was a loony.
With references like those….
The Fidel and Che stuff came out post Cold War. I read somewhere that K really took a dislike to them over that - and that strongly influenced his attitude to Cuba, later.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
Also they don't seem to learn. He had a similar fake photo with the filling up petrol in someone else's car.
Classic on More or Less on Tucker Carlson. The man should be shot. He did a piece (following the collapse of the American Footballer of sudden cardiac arrest) about European Elite Athletes doing the same pre and post vaccination. Pre vaccination it was about 29 per year (apparently it is greater in elite athletes than the normal population). This was from a proper study. Post vaccine it is 1500 (of which I think they said 1000 died) per year apparently. And on a minimal amount of research this was from an anti vax site. The site lists those 1500 athletes. The list is a hoot. Here is one to whet your appetite:
Pele.
Fits the criteria perfectly - Not European, 80 odd years old and didn't die of sudden cardiac arrest but otherwise a perfect fit
And believe it or not that is not the most absurd.
We are going to move away from burning oil for transport - a process already underway. We are not going to stop needing oil for things that can't be powered by leccy, nor all the other things that use oil like plastics.
We have a literal ocean of the stuff out there. Yes it will get more expensive to bring ashore but the same is true elsewhere. So the winning strategy is to heavily develop renewables AND continue to exploit the resources we have.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
Rishi should call an immediate halt to these ludicrous photo-ops. Memo to CCHQ: Rishi is not Boris; don't ask him to drive through a fake wall in a JCB.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
So we are meant to think he can't work a credit card but can change a tyre?
Google image search is hilarious, it thinks he is modelling cheap clothes.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I agree with you about LNER - continues to be one of the few Intercity operators who know what they are doing. And you're right. Why you pleb transport when you can use a jet?
Well, it’s either that or go for the blame London thing - oil and gas in the U.K. will be ending in a decade or 2. That’s national policy - for consumption anyway. Don’t think they’ve started putting end dates on licences in the North Sea. Yet.
An important new psychology study from UCL: In this experiment, we manipulated what men believed about their own penis size, relative to others. We gave them false information, stating that the average penis size was larger than it in fact is, reasoning that, on average, these males will feel that relatively and subjectively their own penis was smaller; compared to those told that the average penis size was smaller than true average. We then asked them to rate how much they would like to own a sports car. These facts and questions were buried amongst other items giving information and asking for product ratings, so that our hypothesis was masked from participants. We found that males, and males over 30 in particular, rated sports cars as more desirable when they were made to feel that they had a small penis. https://psyarxiv.com/uy7ph/download
(Perceived) small penis? Replication crisis?
(Also a prime candidate for an Ig Noble prize)
It was interesting that the penis (mis)information was only one of several manipulations that potentially affected self-esteem, and sports cars were only one category of consumer goods evaluated.
They imply that they had in mind penises and sports cars all along, and the other stuff was all camouflage to prevent the participants realising that. But I can't see anything about the study having been pre-registered. Obviously a study with plentiful opportunities for multiple hypotheses should have been. Experimental psychology has a long way to go.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Don't be daft. It was a photo-op that went wrong. It was designed to create an image of a fluffy caring Rishi, but instead reenforced the perception that he is specularly out of touch. The problem for Rishi is that this is not a one off.
It was deliberately used in that way by people out to run him down. Read the entire transcript. Its as bad as photographing children behind a wire fence that stops just out of shot.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
Nobody ever does a big grin whilst changing wheels. Especially not onto a space saver.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Interestingly you still cannot get covid vaccines privately in the UK and there was very little debate about whether people should be able to when it was less available.
The British fair play line seems to be drawn around paying to save time queuing and getting a nicer environment to be treated in is fine, but queue jumping in an emergency is not.
What is fucking outrageous is that you can pay 250 for a private consult which gets you a letter which gets you back into the NHS at the top of the queue. My fury at this middle class abuse of the system is tempered only by the fact that I have done it.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
So we are meant to think he can't work a credit card but can change a tyre?
Google image search is hilarious, it thinks he is modelling cheap clothes.
And I wonder how much it cost to construct an 80% scale replica of the car so he didn't look so small.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
Comments
...manias ain't what they used to be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mw1D3HTGng
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/11/what-is-at-stake-for-boris-johnson-in-partygate-inquiry
Is it unthinkable that:
(a) the Commons votes to suspend him for long enough to trigger a possible recall
(b) the recall happens and he loses
(c) his supporters portray him as a martyr, and Tory support nationally continues to be anaemic
(d) he is selected for a safe seat and returns in triumph
(e) he's elected as the next leader after a Tory election defeat
- several big "ifs" in there, but it seems not unthinkable that losing the Commons vote fails to finish him?
Which is why McNamara & Kennedy were already phasing them out, like dozens of other nuclear weapons programs.
I know that K presented this as a win - but did the rest of the Soviet leadership really buy that?
Edit: Mr Malmesbury, indeed, but it gave Mr K an out, I worry that Putin has no way out. And he's rubbish at politics.
A number of them are considerably less so these days.
We are, as Heathener likes to say, not the same as Americans. We seem to have a real issue with success* in this country. We like people to do well and then pull them down again, as if the 'story' is all that matters - life as a TV soap opera.
David Cameron's son had much intervention from the NHS, that didn't stop his governments policies laying the foundations for the issues we see today (see John Burn-Murdoch's graphs, or those @Foxy has posted.)
(*Some will say the Sunak is not successful as much of his wealth is through marriage, and this is true, but he is also the PM.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64229379
Meanwhile, our less generous state pensions are said to be unaffordable at 68.
Today? 8 seconds...
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
The missing element with Sunak (apart from the evasion) is that he doesn't give the impression of having a serious medium-term strategy for restoring prompt NHs care.
By refusing to answer, and taking the resulting criticism for that refusal, he makes it easier for Hunt, Barclay and the others to ignore such a question themselves. That's actually a pretty decent bit of leadership, to absorb the flak on this issue personally, rather than to expose his team to it.
The strong advocate most responsible for the debacle, though, was McGeorge Bundy. If intellectual hubris was the administration's greatest weakness, he personified that.
Had Kennedy not been assassinated, it's very likely indeed he would have got out of Vietnam after the '64 election.
Thatcher unashamedly used private healthcare and said so
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
#NatCenDataBites
https://twitter.com/natcen/status/1612389027256143879
Treaty of Troyes.
Now someone is going to say the French broke the treaty. But we are told by Experts that breaking treaties is impossible, wrong and Evul.
So combined with the refugee crisis - a number of recognised humanitarian organisations say that it is unacceptable for refugees to be forced to remain in France - France is clearly a failed state.
So we have a failed state. That has oil. And we all know what that means, children, don’t we?
General Power : Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Professor William Kaufmann : Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman.
Is the book available in any form?
If Sunak never thought through the tax domicile thing there's no chance he thought about healthcare.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Microsoft to move some Teams features to more costly 'Premium' edition
Wants around $10 a month for stuff you get free today, plus plenty more new features
https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/11/teams_premium_more_expensive/
Sunak fucked up the response.
As such, it represented a dangerous escalation in nuclear tension, as it incentivised the Russians to launch at the first sign of provocation, regardless of reality. Putting missiles on Cuba represented an equivalent ability to strike the US for the Russian leadership.
Removing the missiles from Turkey re-established the status quo, where neither side could launch a pre-emptive strike but both retained retaliatory capability.
This logic seems a bit flawed though: the US had submarine launched missiles by this time which the Russians must have known about. Don’t SLBMS represent exactly the same kind of first strike capability? Maybe the fact that the Turkish missiles were publicly known meant the Russians felt they had to act to avoid being seen as weak in the face of (from their POV) US aggression?
move away from oil, risking backlash in Aberdeen and NE Scotland
https://twitter.com/MerrynSW/status/1613077783437086722?s=20&t=InWegjvg435dS8I_oZDIlw
I hadn't seen that quote from General Power - it made me laugh. My e-book was based on the consequences of JFK not being strong enough to over-rule the generals. To think, we used to joke about British Generals.
Fidel wrote to Mr K insisting he start World War Three on behalf of Cuba. Both Kruschev and JFK had fought in WW2 and had no intention of doing so. Che, of course, the hero of student radicals was in favour of Armageddon too.
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
And there will come a point, soon, where that vast investment in fibre-optic cable is going to be redundant at ridiculous cost outside the cities.
(Also a prime candidate for an Ig Noble prize)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64216269
Who have been complaining to regulators that MS bundling Teams is killing their business.
The issue for Sunak is just this - he isn't getting a fair hearing, and likely the mythical powers that be (the media barons) have decided that Starmer is the rising star, will be PM in two years time and thus they need to cultivate him and his party.
The process is happening - interviews in the Sunday papers with the front benchers (Reeves in the Sunday Times recently). Some of this is reflecting what is happening, but some is driving it too. As Harry knows.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/british-and-their-exceptionalism
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust
https://mobile.twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1613094003611688961
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
The biggest danger with the Jupiters was that they were so exposed - a very tempting preemptive target. So they increased the risk of a war starting.
Polaris and Minuteman really created the missile gap - in reverse. Which is why the Russians started talking about arms limitation. At one point there was talk for deploying 10,000 Minuteman missiles. As Phase 1….
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
The British fair play line seems to be drawn around paying to save time queuing and getting a nicer environment to be treated in is fine, but queue jumping in an emergency is not.
Link to an article in one of those papers which on inspection is anti-trans, rather than anti ill thought out silliness which seriously damages or endangers women's rights, children and the genuinely trans. Do this now.
Actually link has to be Times or Telegraph, there's no knowing what's in the Mail.
Cuba taught Kennedy to trust his own judgment and not to defer to the national security 'experts'.
He should have just said he used private medical care and had nothing to apologise for.
Teller said he was a loony.
With references like those….
The Fidel and Che stuff came out post Cold War. I read somewhere that K really took a dislike to them over that - and that strongly influenced his attitude to Cuba, later.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64225230
Or he didn’t change the tyre, but stepped in for the photo after someone else had done the work.
Pele.
Fits the criteria perfectly - Not European, 80 odd years old and didn't die of sudden cardiac arrest but otherwise a perfect fit
And believe it or not that is not the most absurd.
We have a literal ocean of the stuff out there. Yes it will get more expensive to bring ashore but the same is true elsewhere. So the winning strategy is to heavily develop renewables AND continue to exploit the resources we have.
Sturgeon is stupid.
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Google image search is hilarious, it thinks he is modelling cheap clothes.
They imply that they had in mind penises and sports cars all along, and the other stuff was all camouflage to prevent the participants realising that. But I can't see anything about the study having been pre-registered. Obviously a study with plentiful opportunities for multiple hypotheses should have been. Experimental psychology has a long way to go.