Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
But isam is continually bringing this up as some sort of equivalence with Boris Johnson's transgressions, which, crucially, were contrary to the damn rules he had imposed on everyone else. However poorly you judge Keir Starmer's actions, Boris Johnson's are rightly in a different league - even before we get to the issue of lying to Parliament about it.
So I can't help but feel that you've simply fallen for a bit of whataboutery.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
If it's not smoke and mirrors with loads of edits while the computation happens then this is absolutely brilliant.
GPT4 looks out of date already, which is pretty scary.
I'm sure it's not smoke and mirrors, but don't forget that Google will be sharing the most impressive example it can think of.
Similarly, is it processing video in real time? And if so, what kind of machine is it using? (Google has the resources to throw a $5m array of GPUs at it.)
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
The simplest answer is to repurpose the Isle of Man. We already own it, and it's punishment enough for anyone to spend a weekend there, let alone be incarcerated there.
We don't own it. It's self-governing and isn't part of the UK. We just handle its defence and foreign relations for it
The simplest answer is to repurpose the Isle of Man. We already own it, and it's punishment enough for anyone to spend a weekend there, let alone be incarcerated there.
We don't own it. It's self-governing and isn't part of the UK. We just handle its defence and foreign relations for it
What about the Isle of Wight. They once voted for a LibDem MP, so really, they deserve it.
ohnotnow said: "Might even bolster his chances of a board seat on one of Musk's companies if he awards a fat contract to shoot the small boats towards Mars. Those trying to come here but earning less than a cabinet office lackey (plus London weighting of course) just fired to the relatively hospitable climes of the Moon."
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
Over last half decade the Conservative Party has invented an entirely new political strategy which I would call the “boomerang wedge”. It consists of raising the salience of an issue you think will embarrass the opposition and then discovering that you can’t cope with it yourself
Indeed. Wise words from Aaronovitch. (I also enjoy his brother's novels.)
- Tory MP letters going in (but talk of a confidence vote overblown)
- Talk among Tories of early general election has risen BUT, conversely, if Sunak can keep a lid on the chaos, the chances of going long til next autumn have increased
The simplest answer is to repurpose the Isle of Man. We already own it, and it's punishment enough for anyone to spend a weekend there, let alone be incarcerated there.
I think the Manx would be surprised at the idea that the UK owns it. I thought it was KCIII(mk 2)?
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
No he didn't. Starmer called for a tougher lockdown that January when the government was fannying about (it of course did in the end) and opposed lifting of lockdown conditions early, so he was on the cautious side of the argument - but he wasn't going around demanding tougher restrictions in May 2021 rather, rightly or wrongly, he'd been saying the existing tough rules shouldn't be loosened too early. Boris' Captain Handsight jibe came from the fact Starmer rarely took a big position on what should happen unless it was pretty blindingly obvious that it would.
It would have been vaguely daft to as he had to take part in an election campaign (the reason he and his team were together to have that beer) - as he'd be waltzing around campaigning while saying the thing you were doing was dangerous.
As an aside, if it had only been one similarly vaguely dubious event that happened in No. 10 Boris absolutely would have got away with it (he sort of did anyway, given it was Pincher that did for him). But the perception that it was regular practice to just ignore the rules because those in No. 10 saw themselves as a special case that was hugely damaging.
If Sir Keir railed against the specific type of gathering in which he himself partook during CurryGate then the Tories need to put that text and the picture of him swigging beer all over the place, as such brazen hypocrisy would surely be deadly.
The debate stage in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will be down to four Republican presidential hopefuls on Wednesday — with the front-runner, Donald J. Trump, still absent — as the imperative to break from the dwindling pack grows more intense less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
I think the Lascelles Principles would make it difficult for HMTK to approve a dissolution request at that particular time. If the Tory party goes into a leadership election and enjoys a majority in the HOC, then it is still viable that someone will emerge from that process who can enjoy the confidence of the House.
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
Well, I think obeying the law is a good start! Who'd've thought 5 years ago that we'd have a PM twice fined for breaking the law, plus an ex-PM fined once (but he was lucky not to have been fined more).
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
Up to a point.
There's a lot to be said for people who display no hypocrisy at all, whose actions are always aligned with their beliefs... but they can be a bit disturbing to be around. Most of us are somewhere in the shades of grey. The point is that, even within the grey, there are shades. Brighter and darker.
As for the "you can't judge, because you're not perfect, don't be a hypocrite..." Well, Jesus said it, but he's allowed to because he is perfect, if that's your belief system. And the world would be a better place if we all strove to understand more and judge less.
But for now, the world is not that better place. And "you can't judge unless you yourself are spotless" has been used as a get out by the red-handed for generations.
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
If it's not smoke and mirrors with loads of edits while the computation happens then this is absolutely brilliant.
GPT4 looks out of date already, which is pretty scary.
I'm sure it's not smoke and mirrors, but don't forget that Google will be sharing the most impressive example it can think of.
Similarly, is it processing video in real time? And if so, what kind of machine is it using? (Google has the resources to throw a $5m array of GPUs at it.)
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
Alternatively, Sunak is disliked, failing and the Tories already crossed the ridiculous threshold some time ago with Truss. So they have little left to lose. Roll the dice,
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
I think the Lascelles Principles would make it difficult for HMTK to approve a dissolution request at that particular time. If the Tory party goes into a leadership election and enjoys a majority in the HOC, then it is still viable that someone will emerge from that process who can enjoy the confidence of the House.
Actually the 1st point in Lascelles letter is:
"the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job"
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
It's probably the best demo of Machine Learning I have ever seen, the last time I saw a demo that impressed me that much was probably getting on for 10 years ago when some random person showed off all the new Google Search features with the then new image recognition/classification and conversational search that Google themselves had done a lousy job explaining*. In about 10 minutes or so this person sold Google's work better than several days of I/O presentations.
Gemini is perhaps the first time I've seen something that made me think something like "HAL" is getting close. I do wonder about the cost of all this clever tech, some of the hardware deployments are bonkers, and make UK government sovereign AI commitments look like small beer. There is an absolutely gigantic hardware/capital moat around AI now.
* I swear to this day most people only scratch the surface of Google Search.
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
Alternatively, Sunak is disliked, failing and the Tories already crossed the ridiculous threshold some time ago with Truss. So they have little left to lose. Roll the dice,
They won't. Braverman, Badenoch, Mordaunt, maybe Jenrick know that they don't have the numbers to win a majority of Tory MPs now.
This is all posturing to be next Leader of the Opposition not next PM and to get to the last 2 then and then win the membership.
They will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
I don't think anyone is questioning anyone's right to criticise Starmer as sometimes being slippery or hypocritical but one has to do so on the facts rather than make up that he was doing something he wasn't doing at that time because it fits what someone wants to be true as it accords with their overall feelings about a topic.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Just one sliver of evidence that the vitamin A content of peaches has declined by 97% would be good. Extraordinary claims and all that...
Why would I provide a slither of evidence when I haven't even made the claim? Read. The. Post.
@Ominium asked: Hey LG Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
You answered: The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Looks like a claim to me.
On the basic issue of a drop in nutritional value of fruit and veg there is stacks of evidence and papers backing up this suggestion.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
It's probably the best demo of Machine Learning I have ever seen, the last time I saw a demo that impressed me that much was probably getting on for 10 years ago when some random person showed off all the new Google Search features with the then new image recognition/classification and conversational search that Google themselves had done a lousy job explaining*. In about 10 minutes or so this person sold Google's work better than several days of I/O presentations.
Gemini is perhaps the first time I've seen something that made me think something like "HAL" is getting close. I do wonder about the cost of all this clever tech, some of the hardware deployments are bonkers, and make UK government sovereign AI commitments look like small beer. There is an absolutely gigantic hardware/capital moat around AI now.
* I swear to this day most people only scratch the surface of Google Search.
And then I think about corporate interests owning AGI and realise what a dystopia we're heading for.
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
Up to a point.
There's a lot to be said for people who display no hypocrisy at all, whose actions are always aligned with their beliefs... but they can be a bit disturbing to be around. Most of us are somewhere in the shades of grey. The point is that, even within the grey, there are shades. Brighter and darker.
As for the "you can't judge, because you're not perfect, don't be a hypocrite..." Well, Jesus said it, but he's allowed to because he is perfect, if that's your belief system. And the world would be a better place if we all strove to understand more and judge less.
But for now, the world is not that better place. And "you can't judge unless you yourself are spotless" has been used as a get out by the red-handed for generations.
It’s not so much about Sir Keir being the judge, it’s that no one seems bothered about his hypocrisy, with the only defence seemingly being ‘there was a loophole in the law that he exploited, so that makes it fair enough’
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
Well, I think obeying the law is a good start! Who'd've thought 5 years ago that we'd have a PM twice fined for breaking the law, plus an ex-PM fined once (but he was lucky not to have been fined more).
And let's not even start on Trump!
Who’dve thought 5 years ago that the law broken was sitting in his office having a cup of tea?
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
Alternatively, Sunak is disliked, failing and the Tories already crossed the ridiculous threshold some time ago with Truss. So they have little left to lose. Roll the dice,
They won't. Braverman, Badenoch, Mordaunt, maybe Jenrick know that they don't have the numbers to win a majority of Tory MPs now.
This is all posturing to be next Leader of the Opposition not next PM and to get to the last 2 then and then win the membership.
They will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat
Given the sire state of the Tories, if you can get it now, you might stand a chance or keeping the job after a defeat. Might be better odds than waiting it out. Worse comes to the worst , you’ll still outlast Truss.
ohnotnow said: "Might even bolster his chances of a board seat on one of Musk's companies if he awards a fat contract to shoot the small boats towards Mars. Those trying to come here but earning less than a cabinet office lackey (plus London weighting of course) just fired to the relatively hospitable climes of the Moon."
Funnily enough I read that very story only a few weeks ago. (I have a mighty collection of both US and UK Sci fi Magazines from the 50s and 60s). There is also a good version of it on youtube in the Chip Slater Sci Fi collection.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
It's probably the best demo of Machine Learning I have ever seen, the last time I saw a demo that impressed me that much was probably getting on for 10 years ago when some random person showed off all the new Google Search features with the then new image recognition/classification and conversational search that Google themselves had done a lousy job explaining*. In about 10 minutes or so this person sold Google's work better than several days of I/O presentations.
Gemini is perhaps the first time I've seen something that made me think something like "HAL" is getting close. I do wonder about the cost of all this clever tech, some of the hardware deployments are bonkers, and make UK government sovereign AI commitments look like small beer. There is an absolutely gigantic hardware/capital moat around AI now.
* I swear to this day most people only scratch the surface of Google Search.
And then I think about corporate interests owning AGI and realise what a dystopia we're heading for.
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
Alternatively, Sunak is disliked, failing and the Tories already crossed the ridiculous threshold some time ago with Truss. So they have little left to lose. Roll the dice,
They won't. Braverman, Badenoch, Mordaunt, maybe Jenrick know that they don't have the numbers to win a majority of Tory MPs now.
This is all posturing to be next Leader of the Opposition not next PM and to get to the last 2 then and then win the membership.
They will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat
The key point is not the numbers but why on earth any of them would WANT the job NOW? The election is unwinnable - they will let Sunak take the bullet while positioning themselves for the inevitable.
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
Well, I think obeying the law is a good start! Who'd've thought 5 years ago that we'd have a PM twice fined for breaking the law, plus an ex-PM fined once (but he was lucky not to have been fined more).
And let's not even start on Trump!
Who’dve thought 5 years ago that the law broken was sitting in his office having a cup of tea?
No-one broke the law by sitting in an office having a cup of tea. Stop making shit up.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
It's probably the best demo of Machine Learning I have ever seen, the last time I saw a demo that impressed me that much was probably getting on for 10 years ago when some random person showed off all the new Google Search features with the then new image recognition/classification and conversational search that Google themselves had done a lousy job explaining*. In about 10 minutes or so this person sold Google's work better than several days of I/O presentations.
Gemini is perhaps the first time I've seen something that made me think something like "HAL" is getting close. I do wonder about the cost of all this clever tech, some of the hardware deployments are bonkers, and make UK government sovereign AI commitments look like small beer. There is an absolutely gigantic hardware/capital moat around AI now.
* I swear to this day most people only scratch the surface of Google Search.
And then I think about corporate interests owning AGI and realise what a dystopia we're heading for.
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
I am excited by AGI.
Google AGI™ less so.
Amstrad AGI, that’s when the fun really starts.
The "drink verification can" meme is 10 years old in 2024. It no longer seems implausible -
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
Up to a point.
There's a lot to be said for people who display no hypocrisy at all, whose actions are always aligned with their beliefs... but they can be a bit disturbing to be around. Most of us are somewhere in the shades of grey. The point is that, even within the grey, there are shades. Brighter and darker.
As for the "you can't judge, because you're not perfect, don't be a hypocrite..." Well, Jesus said it, but he's allowed to because he is perfect, if that's your belief system. And the world would be a better place if we all strove to understand more and judge less.
But for now, the world is not that better place. And "you can't judge unless you yourself are spotless" has been used as a get out by the red-handed for generations.
It’s not so much about Sir Keir being the judge, it’s that no one seems bothered about his hypocrisy, with the only defence seemingly being ‘there was a loophole in the law that he exploited, so that makes it fair enough’
You call it a loophole. It wasn’t a loophole. It was clear what the law was and Starmer didn’t break it. Many months earlier, there were much stricter rules in place and routine, wholesale breaking of them at No. 10 over and over and over. You refuse to engage with the scale of lawbreaking in Downing Street, or with the many reports of a culture that didn’t see the rules applying to them.
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
Well, I think obeying the law is a good start! Who'd've thought 5 years ago that we'd have a PM twice fined for breaking the law, plus an ex-PM fined once (but he was lucky not to have been fined more).
And let's not even start on Trump!
Who’dve thought 5 years ago that the law broken was sitting in his office having a cup of tea?
No-one broke the law by sitting in an office having a cup of tea. Stop making shit up.
So there we have it - everything politicians do that is hypocritical, morally dubious & reeks of one rule for them and another for us is beyond criticism as long as it’s not against the law
Well, I think obeying the law is a good start! Who'd've thought 5 years ago that we'd have a PM twice fined for breaking the law, plus an ex-PM fined once (but he was lucky not to have been fined more).
And let's not even start on Trump!
Who’dve thought 5 years ago that the law broken was sitting in his office having a cup of tea?
No-one broke the law by sitting in an office having a cup of tea. Stop making shit up.
Sunak was fined for it! Maybe it was a glass of water. A soft drink in any case
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
It's probably the best demo of Machine Learning I have ever seen, the last time I saw a demo that impressed me that much was probably getting on for 10 years ago when some random person showed off all the new Google Search features with the then new image recognition/classification and conversational search that Google themselves had done a lousy job explaining*. In about 10 minutes or so this person sold Google's work better than several days of I/O presentations.
Gemini is perhaps the first time I've seen something that made me think something like "HAL" is getting close. I do wonder about the cost of all this clever tech, some of the hardware deployments are bonkers, and make UK government sovereign AI commitments look like small beer. There is an absolutely gigantic hardware/capital moat around AI now.
* I swear to this day most people only scratch the surface of Google Search.
And then I think about corporate interests owning AGI and realise what a dystopia we're heading for.
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
I am excited by AGI.
Google AGI™ less so.
Amstrad AGI, that’s when the fun really starts.
It will be a machine that you plug into your landline that will answer the phone on your behalf.
Instead of leaving a message, people can have a conversation with it, and it will give you a summary so you stay up to date with your social life.
And then I think about corporate interests owning AGI and realise what a dystopia we're heading for.
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
I am excited by AGI.
Google AGI™ less so.
There will be much worse than corporate AI/AGI/ASI. All sorts of awful regimes, criminal enterprises, and even idiots having a laugh will be able to use or possess such technologies. I don't believe that this is ultimately regulatable or governable.
There ought to be some sort of "Nth Country Experiment" for ASI, in fact I'd be surprised if intelligence agencies are not studying such problems now.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
Alternatively, Sunak is disliked, failing and the Tories already crossed the ridiculous threshold some time ago with Truss. So they have little left to lose. Roll the dice,
They won't. Braverman, Badenoch, Mordaunt, maybe Jenrick know that they don't have the numbers to win a majority of Tory MPs now.
This is all posturing to be next Leader of the Opposition not next PM and to get to the last 2 then and then win the membership.
They will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat
The key point is not the numbers but why on earth any of them would WANT the job NOW? The election is unwinnable - they will let Sunak take the bullet while positioning themselves for the inevitable.
That also applies to Sunak. Why not walk? He’s got to the top and achieved all his political ambitions such as meeting Elon Musk. Why not let someone else take the fall?
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could, that a benefit for him. Losing £20k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Andrea Jenkyns MP 🇬🇧 @andreajenkyns · 4h Well done to @RobertJenrick for resigning. As his former PPS when he was Secretary of State I saw his strength and how he stood up to civil servants, I know what a decent man he is and how he adores his family. This may be the death knell for Sunaks leadership.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
More like the Guardian - a paper which loudly and vocally calls for higher taxes, but then owned and operated in a way to completely minimise taxes and operate every legal tax dodge going.
If enough letters go in to the 1922 committee, could Rishi call a general election to move things on?
They won't and even if they did Sunak would still win it comfortably, there is no alternative Tory leader before the next general election now and it would look ridiculous to change PM a third time in one Parliament
Alternatively, Sunak is disliked, failing and the Tories already crossed the ridiculous threshold some time ago with Truss. So they have little left to lose. Roll the dice,
They won't. Braverman, Badenoch, Mordaunt, maybe Jenrick know that they don't have the numbers to win a majority of Tory MPs now.
This is all posturing to be next Leader of the Opposition not next PM and to get to the last 2 then and then win the membership.
They will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat
The key point is not the numbers but why on earth any of them would WANT the job NOW? The election is unwinnable - they will let Sunak take the bullet while positioning themselves for the inevitable.
That also applies to Sunak. Why not walk? He’s got to the top and achieved all his political ambitions such as meeting Elon Musk. Why not let someone else take the fall?
Because he'd look pathetic and there is no coming back. Everyone else has the prospect of being LOTO in 2025, and then who knows? Sunak doesn't. His only chance is to at least TRY to win and, although it's objectively hopeless, he kind of has to hope for the Hail Mary pass.
And John Major at least gets some public credit in hindsight (with some of the worst aspects of his fag end lost in the mists of time) for trying to hold it together and losing with reasonable grace. He'd not get that if he'd said "well, sod you then" and gone off in a huff on the eve of the election.
And then I think about corporate interests owning AGI and realise what a dystopia we're heading for.
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
I am excited by AGI.
Google AGI™ less so.
There will be much worse than corporate AI/AGI/ASI. All sorts of awful regimes, criminal enterprises, and even idiots having a laugh will be able to use or possess such technologies. I don't believe that this is ultimately regulatable or governable.
There ought to be some sort of "Nth Country Experiment" for ASI, in fact I'd be surprised if intelligence agencies are not studying such problems now.
Dunno. Anyone can create a search engine, but they don't, because there's already one. Anyone can run Linux, but they don't, because Windows.
Only circa 1% of web users run ad blockers despite it being, well, the most obvious QOL upgrade you can do to the internet in its present form. Circa 5% of people bother to jailbreak their phone.
The ability to leave the corporate walled garden exists, but most people don't choose to do it. Based on that, the future looks like corporate approved AI, with corporate approved values and intentions, unless something radically changes.
People said the ability to 3d print a gun would change everything in terms of rogue actors having unlimited access to firearms, despite that not much really changed.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
You do get the sense that the Conservatives are running out of ideas.
I’m not a Conservative. But the idea that double standards from politicians are ok as long as they’re not technically breaking the law is a surprising about turn on here
You do get the sense that the Conservatives are running out of ideas.
Beergate seems to have become the British Right's Benghazi: a damming example of the incompetence, duplicity and wickedness of the liberal elite that unfathomably never resulted in the reputational destruction that was warranted.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Personally, I do almost everything I can to avoid work social events. But I get it, you think that hanging out with a bunch of Labour politicians is something everyone desires to do.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Personally, I do almost everything I can to avoid work social events. But I get it, you think that hanging out with a bunch of Labour politicians is something everyone desires to do.
No, hanging out with their friends from work is what a lot of people desire to do, especially around Spring 21 when it was forbidden for Joe Public
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Personally, I do almost everything I can to avoid work social events. But I get it, you think that hanging out with a bunch of Labour politicians is something everyone desires to do.
No, hanging out with their friends from work is what a lot of people desire to do, especially around Spring 21 when it was forbidden for Joe Public
I suspect you are the last remaining Currygate conspiracist. When you bellyache about Starmer living it large with beer and curry whilst poor Boris was "ambushed by cake" you are willfully ignoring the other ( at least) 4 occasions when Johnson got away scot-free after attending illegal events, not least the Abba Party which in Johnson's case wasn't even investigated by the Met. despite compelling evidence of his attendance.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
To some extent, farmers have just been giving consumers what they want.
For example, around 80 years ago, the federal government had to change the directions for canning tomatoes -- because the newer varieties were less acid than the older ones. (Consumer tastes change, and in some supermarkets I can now buy "heirloom" tomatoes, and brownish Kumato tomatoes that are supposedly high in nutrients.)
Similarly, when Cambell's found out that some customers did not like yellow chunks of carrots in their soups, they got plant breeders to eliminate the yellow cores that I remember from my youth. (I'm inclined to think that was a mistake, since the different colors probably have different mixes of nutrients.)
All that is -- in my opinion -- dwarfed by the improvement in nutrition from trade. Tomorrow, for example, I will have, with my oatmeal, a banana from Central America, and blueberries from Peru.
The oatmeal, from the supermarket giant Kroger, includes apples, walnuts, and raisins. It cost me $1.50 for a box with 10 packets in it.
(For the record: For safety reasons I tend to avoid "organic" produce, since it may be contaminated with bacteria from the animal wastes that are used for fertilizer. I would be especially careful with leafy vegetables like lettuce.)
Lots of people eat organic foods over here and I've never heard of any problems caused by them.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
I remember people on here asking if others thought it would be ok to go and talk to their parents outside! I went round to mine all the time and kicked a ball back and forth in the garden with my dad - he’d just finished having chemo, you think I’m going to let Boris Johnson decide whether I’m going to see him?
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Fair. Which is why it is so infuriating that the "inquiry" seems focused on the question of how many parties Boris's interns had, rather than the question of how much damage lockdown did to society and the economy, and whether it was all worth it.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Fair. Which is why it is so infuriating that the "inquiry" seems focused on the question of how many parties Boris's interns had, rather than the question of how much damage lockdown did to society and the economy, and whether it was all worth it.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Agree. They immediately tried to pin Johnson to saving lives as the only priority, which is just silly. In fact, the subsequent questions betrayed how confused the inquiry is to their objective.
Even if saving lives is the only priority for the government during a pandemic, you have all the other diseases and illnesses other than COVID to contend with (particularly cancer checks). Do they count too?
I think a big lesson is that policy has to have clarity and simplicity. "Only mix outside for the next 4 months" would feel more authoritarian than your scotch egg example, but would have probably reduced transmission, given businesses more certainty and time to adapt, and afforded more freedom to meet friends than the rules we ended up with.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Getting to the bottom of how the decision was made to ban outdoor sports activities would be a more useful question for the inquiry to focus on than whether people in Number 10 were drinking on the job.
It was such a missed opportunity not to prioritise trying to improve the nation's cardiovascular health, and it might actually have suited someone like Matt Hancock.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Fair. Which is why it is so infuriating that the "inquiry" seems focused on the question of how many parties Boris's interns had, rather than the question of how much damage lockdown did to society and the economy, and whether it was all worth it.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Agree. They immediately tried to pin Johnson to saving lives as the only priority, which is just silly. In fact, the subsequent questions betrayed how confused the inquiry is to their objective.
Even if saving lives is the only priority for the government during a pandemic, you have all the other diseases and illnesses other than COVID to contend with (particularly cancer checks). Do they count too?
I think a big lesson is that policy has to have clarity and simplicity. "Only mix outside for the next 4 months" would feel more authoritarian than your scotch egg example, but would have probably reduced transmission, given businesses more certainty and time to adapt, and afforded more freedom to meet friends than the rules we ended up with.
Yep.
For those two years we lived by the spreadsheets of Neil Ferguson et al. There's no point in recriminations over the accuracy of the figures at the time, at this point I'm more interested in reviewing the numbers saved, the effects on the economy, how much was lost, as well as the effectiveness of some rules and the pointlessness of others (scotch eggs etc) so if a similar situation ever reoccurs, we are better prepared. What are the benefits? What are the costs?
I'm also interested in understanding how quickly the UK descended into authoritarianism, with police drones flying over the moors trying to catch anyone who dared stray more than 5 miles from their house, and doors kicked in over childrens birthday parties, etc. We effectively had an "enabling act" within a couple of weeks of a crisis being declared - could that be abused in the future? What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again?
These are the questions I want an enquiry to solve. I don't give a rat's ass about the rest.
On Twitter, it's sad to see so many so-called 'socialists' - especially anti-imperialist ones - supporting Venezuela over Guyana.
Although it's perfectly possible that these are not real people. But I see Corbyn has not diverted from his tweets on Gaza to condemn Venezuela...
This is no different to all the so called progressives failing to show any support for Israel or the victims of Hamas after the atrocity of the 7th October. Entirely consistent. Posting crap for likes and retweets from a section on social media is far more important than consistency and decency.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Fair. Which is why it is so infuriating that the "inquiry" seems focused on the question of how many parties Boris's interns had, rather than the question of how much damage lockdown did to society and the economy, and whether it was all worth it.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Agree. They immediately tried to pin Johnson to saving lives as the only priority, which is just silly. In fact, the subsequent questions betrayed how confused the inquiry is to their objective.
Even if saving lives is the only priority for the government during a pandemic, you have all the other diseases and illnesses other than COVID to contend with (particularly cancer checks). Do they count too?
I think a big lesson is that policy has to have clarity and simplicity. "Only mix outside for the next 4 months" would feel more authoritarian than your scotch egg example, but would have probably reduced transmission, given businesses more certainty and time to adapt, and afforded more freedom to meet friends than the rules we ended up with.
Yep.
For those two years we lived by the spreadsheets of Neil Ferguson et al. There's no point in recriminations over the accuracy of the figures at the time, at this point I'm more interested in reviewing the numbers saved, the effects on the economy, how much was lost, as well as the effectiveness of some rules and the pointlessness of others (scotch eggs etc) so if a similar situation ever reoccurs, we are better prepared. What are the benefits? What are the costs?
I'm also interested in understanding how quickly the UK descended into authoritarianism, with police drones flying over the moors trying to catch anyone who dared stray more than 5 miles from their house, and doors kicked in over childrens birthday parties, etc. We effectively had an "enabling act" within a couple of weeks of a crisis being declared - could that be abused in the future? What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again?
These are the questions I want an enquiry to solve. I don't give a rat's ass about the rest.
Remember these two examples of idiocy from the Police.
You’re quite right. This should all be about lessons learned for the future. The problem is it is all grandstanding KC’s, reputation management and blame apportionment.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
On Twitter, it's sad to see so many so-called 'socialists' - especially anti-imperialist ones - supporting Venezuela over Guyana.
Although it's perfectly possible that these are not real people. But I see Corbyn has not diverted from his tweets on Gaza to condemn Venezuela...
This is no different to all the so called progressives failing to show any support for Israel or the victims of Hamas after the atrocity of the 7th October. Entirely consistent. Posting crap for likes and retweets from a section on social media is far more important than consistency and decency.
Corbyn in particular has a 'history' with Venezuela:
I wonder if Corbyn thinks Venezuela is 'outside interference' in Guyana, or is he, like some leftists, blaming the US for forcing Venezuela to grab its neighbour's territory? For reasons...
Corbyn's apparent silence on this is appalling, given his apparent fondness for Venezuela.
On Twitter, it's sad to see so many so-called 'socialists' - especially anti-imperialist ones - supporting Venezuela over Guyana.
Although it's perfectly possible that these are not real people. But I see Corbyn has not diverted from his tweets on Gaza to condemn Venezuela...
This is no different to all the so called progressives failing to show any support for Israel or the victims of Hamas after the atrocity of the 7th October. Entirely consistent. Posting crap for likes and retweets from a section on social media is far more important than consistency and decency.
Corbyn in particular has a 'history' with Venezuela:
I wonder if Corbyn thinks Venezuela is 'outside interference' in Guyana, or is he, like some leftists, blaming the US for forcing Venezuela to grab its neighbour's territory? For reasons...
Corbyn's apparent silence on this is appalling, given his apparent fondness for Venezuela.
The hard left seems to have embraced Venezuela as an Anti imperialist American cause celebre.
I can remember, prior to covid, the usual mob with Palestine flags and pics of CheGuevara, under the Grey Monument, collecting signatures or selling Socialist Worker, would also have Venezuelan flags.
I guess stealing land and occupying it is okay as long as you approve of,the regime who is doing it.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Fair. Which is why it is so infuriating that the "inquiry" seems focused on the question of how many parties Boris's interns had, rather than the question of how much damage lockdown did to society and the economy, and whether it was all worth it.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Agree. They immediately tried to pin Johnson to saving lives as the only priority, which is just silly. In fact, the subsequent questions betrayed how confused the inquiry is to their objective.
Even if saving lives is the only priority for the government during a pandemic, you have all the other diseases and illnesses other than COVID to contend with (particularly cancer checks). Do they count too?
I think a big lesson is that policy has to have clarity and simplicity. "Only mix outside for the next 4 months" would feel more authoritarian than your scotch egg example, but would have probably reduced transmission, given businesses more certainty and time to adapt, and afforded more freedom to meet friends than the rules we ended up with.
Yep.
For those two years we lived by the spreadsheets of Neil Ferguson et al. There's no point in recriminations over the accuracy of the figures at the time, at this point I'm more interested in reviewing the numbers saved, the effects on the economy, how much was lost, as well as the effectiveness of some rules and the pointlessness of others (scotch eggs etc) so if a similar situation ever reoccurs, we are better prepared. What are the benefits? What are the costs?
I'm also interested in understanding how quickly the UK descended into authoritarianism, with police drones flying over the moors trying to catch anyone who dared stray more than 5 miles from their house, and doors kicked in over childrens birthday parties, etc. We effectively had an "enabling act" within a couple of weeks of a crisis being declared - could that be abused in the future? What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again?
These are the questions I want an enquiry to solve. I don't give a rat's ass about the rest.
Remember these two examples of idiocy from the Police.
You’re quite right. This should all be about lessons learned for the future. The problem is it is all grandstanding KC’s, reputation management and blame apportionment.
I doubt anything worthwhile will come out of it.
What you need to understand about Covid is Boris got everything right and any bad decisions were due to Dominic Cummings, Matt Hancock, Michael Gove, the medical officers and scientists. Nadine Dorries would not have published it if it weren't true.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
It was within the rules if you were campaigning for an election. Almost everyone wasn’t. So for him to do so, whilst saying the rules forbidding everyone else from doing it must continue, was a bit of a piss take. I’d have thought the self professed ‘Mr Integrity’ would have thought ‘this is technically ok, but in reality it’s a bad look’ and gone back to his hotel room.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
The rules at that point was that you were allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
These were the rules. I suppose if you were in a job where you went to work in an office with other people you might be able to have a meal with them, but the advice was to work from home if possible, and no indoor hospitality was open
All these debates do is serve to remind us of how ridiculous the rules were.
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
It's not binary though. There are plenty of legitimate positions that I could defend.
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Fair. Which is why it is so infuriating that the "inquiry" seems focused on the question of how many parties Boris's interns had, rather than the question of how much damage lockdown did to society and the economy, and whether it was all worth it.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Agree. They immediately tried to pin Johnson to saving lives as the only priority, which is just silly. In fact, the subsequent questions betrayed how confused the inquiry is to their objective.
Even if saving lives is the only priority for the government during a pandemic, you have all the other diseases and illnesses other than COVID to contend with (particularly cancer checks). Do they count too?
I think a big lesson is that policy has to have clarity and simplicity. "Only mix outside for the next 4 months" would feel more authoritarian than your scotch egg example, but would have probably reduced transmission, given businesses more certainty and time to adapt, and afforded more freedom to meet friends than the rules we ended up with.
Yep.
For those two years we lived by the spreadsheets of Neil Ferguson et al. There's no point in recriminations over the accuracy of the figures at the time, at this point I'm more interested in reviewing the numbers saved, the effects on the economy, how much was lost, as well as the effectiveness of some rules and the pointlessness of others (scotch eggs etc) so if a similar situation ever reoccurs, we are better prepared. What are the benefits? What are the costs?
I'm also interested in understanding how quickly the UK descended into authoritarianism, with police drones flying over the moors trying to catch anyone who dared stray more than 5 miles from their house, and doors kicked in over childrens birthday parties, etc. We effectively had an "enabling act" within a couple of weeks of a crisis being declared - could that be abused in the future? What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again?
These are the questions I want an enquiry to solve. I don't give a rat's ass about the rest.
Remember these two examples of idiocy from the Police.
You’re quite right. This should all be about lessons learned for the future. The problem is it is all grandstanding KC’s, reputation management and blame apportionment.
I doubt anything worthwhile will come out of it.
What you need to understand about Covid is Boris got everything right and any bad decisions were due to Dominic Cummings, Matt Hancock, Michael Gove, the medical officers and scientists. Nadine Dorries would not have published it if it weren't true.
Which is probably as insightful as anything we will get from this enquiry.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
whats the thinking about Jenrick's resignation - is it serious for Rishi or a storm in a teacup? Must admit Jenrick always came across as a slippery shxt so I'm not bothered but what about the Tory backbenchers....?
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Sunak's big mistake was not being vague enough in his small boat pledge. As soon as he said "stop the boats" he created an implicit target that would be almost impossible to meet. People are well aware of the risk they take crossing the channel, the only thing that would really stop them entirely is the Royal Navy sinking every boat it located.
They are crossing to get jobs. They mostly claim asylum when caught.
This is because, while they may well have a legitimate case as asylum seekers, they can’t work if they are in the asylum process.
So the smart move (they think) is to disappear into the black economy.
You could turn the black economy off, but that would upset a lot of people. Some of whom would surprise you.
Bravo to Isam for performative stupidity overnight. He knows fully well that the “loophole” he refers to is the law being changed to make the restrictions less severe. The same restrictions his lot wanted to be made less severe. It’s the equivalent of condemning gay men for exploiting “the loophole” of being able to marry rather than being arrested.
Like the various Russian bots who sadly appear to have departed, he appears to miss the fact that he has a very limited audience on here because most of us have a brain. Very entertaining to read though!
whats the thinking about Jenrick's resignation - is it serious for Rishi or a storm in a teacup? Must admit Jenrick always came across as a slippery shxt so I'm not bothered but what about the Tory backbenchers....?
Tory backbenchers will only move against Rishi en masse if polling shows a better alternative, for instance if Starmer beats Sunak by 20 points but only leads Suella/Cleverly/Whoever by three.
Otherwise there is only the question of what their job will be in 2025: Opposition MP; director of several companies and a couple of quangos; unemployed has-been. Sadly for most MPs, they will find their talents are not in wide demand so they will need to look for a proper job or graceful retirement on one of those gold-plated public sector pensions they've always railed against.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
Well they are being asked to pony up a colossal amount of money ant a time when US indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate and debt repayments are rising due to interest rate increases.
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
Bravo to Isam for performative stupidity overnight. He knows fully well that the “loophole” he refers to is the law being changed to make the restrictions less severe. The same restrictions his lot wanted to be made less severe. It’s the equivalent of condemning gay men for exploiting “the loophole” of being able to marry rather than being arrested.
Like the various Russian bots who sadly appear to have departed, he appears to miss the fact that he has a very limited audience on here because most of us have a brain. Very entertaining to read though!
Isam cannot cope with the fact that Labour started to move ahead in the polls when Starmer showed what a man of the people he was.
Who couldn't love a man who travelled several hundred miles for a beer and a takeaway curry with Angela Rayner and a few other mates, so as to stick it to The Man?
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Getting to the bottom of how the decision was made to ban outdoor sports activities would be a more useful question for the inquiry to focus on than whether people in Number 10 were drinking on the job.
It was such a missed opportunity not to prioritise trying to improve the nation's cardiovascular health, and it might actually have suited someone like Matt Hancock.
I can only conclude that plenty of the government and their advisors get off on massively restricting and controlling other people's lives.
It may even be that any form of "fun" was felt to be entirely inappropriate given the seriousness of the situation.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
Well they are being asked to pony up a colossal amount of money ant a time when US indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate and debt repayments are rising due to interest rate increases.
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
But they're not, are they? Most of the stuff being sent to Ukraine is obsolete and due to be scrapped anyway. In fact, quite a lot of the stuff being sent saves the US the bother and expense of getting rid of it in other ways. It's worth as much as a Trump pledge to follow the law.
Biden daren't say this of course, but if there were any sane GOP senators (they mostly voted to acquit Trump, so I have reservations) they might have spotted it for themselves.
Comments
So I can't help but feel that you've simply fallen for a bit of whataboutery.
Similarly, is it processing video in real time? And if so, what kind of machine is it using? (Google has the resources to throw a $5m array of GPUs at it.)
I'm super excited.
And then all their players go to the African Cup.....
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
I would like to think you are not referring to a scheme similar to that in this classic science fiction horror story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons
He can’t. That’s the whole point.
NY Times
And let's not even start on Trump!
There's a lot to be said for people who display no hypocrisy at all, whose actions are always aligned with their beliefs... but they can be a bit disturbing to be around. Most of us are somewhere in the shades of grey. The point is that, even within the grey, there are shades. Brighter and darker.
As for the "you can't judge, because you're not perfect, don't be a hypocrite..." Well, Jesus said it, but he's allowed to because he is perfect, if that's your belief system. And the world would be a better place if we all strove to understand more and judge less.
But for now, the world is not that better place. And "you can't judge unless you yourself are spotless" has been used as a get out by the red-handed for generations.
But still very impressive.
So, goodbye Robert Jenrick.
You won't be missed.
Because you are
A prick.
"the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job"
Highly debatable imho.
Vital?
You are having a laugh.
Gemini is perhaps the first time I've seen something that made me think something like "HAL" is getting close. I do wonder about the cost of all this clever tech, some of the hardware deployments are bonkers, and make UK government sovereign AI commitments look like small beer. There is an absolutely gigantic hardware/capital moat around AI now.
* I swear to this day most people only scratch the surface of Google Search.
This is all posturing to be next Leader of the Opposition not next PM and to get to the last 2 then and then win the membership.
They will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat
This is a paper from 2009
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1/article-p15.xml#
And a Scientific American article from 2011 citing a study that showed Vitamin A levels in oranges had declined by 8 times over 2 generations.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
The last decade or so has shown us how the mega-corporations will behave (as if the years preceding that weren't enough). The enshittification model coupled with the realisation of big social media players that they can pump out whatever propaganda they like demonstrates where it will lead.
I am excited by AGI.
Google AGI™ less so.
May you ever grow in our guts
You had the gall to resign yourself
And rip Sunak's government apart
You called out to Tory members
And you told migrants to depart
Now you belong on the backbenches
Dreaming of the top job
And it seems to me you lived your life
Like a straw in the wind
Never failing to jump on a bandwagon
When an election moved in
https://i.imgur.com/dgGvgKF.png
Instead of leaving a message, people can have a conversation with it, and it will give you a summary so you stay up to date with your social life.
There ought to be some sort of "Nth Country Experiment" for ASI, in fact I'd be surprised if intelligence agencies are not studying such problems now.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-governments-approach-to-elections-and-referendums-during-covid-19/the-governments-approach-to-elections-and-referendums-during-covid-19
Andrea Jenkyns MP 🇬🇧
@andreajenkyns
·
4h
Well done to
@RobertJenrick
for resigning. As his former PPS when he was Secretary of State I saw his strength and how he stood up to civil servants, I know what a decent man he is and how he adores his family.
This may be the death knell for Sunaks leadership.
Yes its legal. Yes its completely hypocritical.
And John Major at least gets some public credit in hindsight (with some of the worst aspects of his fag end lost in the mists of time) for trying to hold it together and losing with reasonable grace. He'd not get that if he'd said "well, sod you then" and gone off in a huff on the eve of the election.
Only circa 1% of web users run ad blockers despite it being, well, the most obvious QOL upgrade you can do to the internet in its present form. Circa 5% of people bother to jailbreak their phone.
The ability to leave the corporate walled garden exists, but most people don't choose to do it. Based on that, the future looks like corporate approved AI, with corporate approved values and intentions, unless something radically changes.
People said the ability to 3d print a gun would change everything in terms of rogue actors having unlimited access to firearms, despite that not much really changed.
Most people take what's given to them.
You do get the sense that the Conservatives are running out of ideas.
https://x.com/theinsiderpaper/status/1732456706813424035
But BBC chair appointment seems a good decision??
Samir Shah
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
Your tax example and the curry don’t overlap by the way, you can’t mix them up like that
There was nothing in the rules about elections. I would have been allowed a meal with colleagues if it was part of working.
So, I'm struggling to see your point here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/step-2-covid-19-restrictions-posters-12-april-2021
Like being able to go to the pub, but having to put on a mask before going for a wazz. Or only being able to get a round in, if you ordered a scotch egg. My local had one way signs along the floor, forcing you to go clockwise through the pub, to get a pint, a seat, take a leak, as if working your way through a pub clockwise somehow defeated the virus.
Shit times, bullshit rules, anyone calling for stronger lockdowns during that time deserves absolute scorn for playing to the gallery of people scared into compliance by dodgy "science" utterly lacking in cost benefit analysis.
As someone said earlier today, Contrarian's posts need a re-read.
Isn't this the very definition of Westminster politics?
You can support some but not all of the lockdowns.
You could, with hindsight, conclude the rules were all useless but understandable given the information that was available at the time.
You might think they were appropriate, but lasted too long.
You can also think that the rules became too complex. There should've been an outright ban on indoor mixing, but no limitation on outdoor mixing, for example.
Or that there should've been stricter rules for over 50s, and looser ones for children and their parents. Uni and college students should have had their fees refunded.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Even if it was worth it, I fail to see how pointless laws such as the ordering of a single scotch egg while me and my mates downed sixteen pints between us in some way contributed towards the slowing of the spread of the virus.
The whole lockdown debacle strikes me as a classic example of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" thinking. Hence the scotch egg. Plus, the obsession with saving life at any cost is counter to how any sensible economy needs to be run - hence why we don't have a speed limit of 15mph and a person walking in front of a car with a red flag any more. A reckoning in the form of a cost benefit analysis should be had.
But no. Those are questions people don't seem to want to face, for some reason.
Even if saving lives is the only priority for the government during a pandemic, you have all the other diseases and illnesses other than COVID to contend with (particularly cancer checks). Do they count too?
I think a big lesson is that policy has to have clarity and simplicity. "Only mix outside for the next 4 months" would feel more authoritarian than your scotch egg example, but would have probably reduced transmission, given businesses more certainty and time to adapt, and afforded more freedom to meet friends than the rules we ended up with.
It was such a missed opportunity not to prioritise trying to improve the nation's cardiovascular health, and it might actually have suited someone like Matt Hancock.
For those two years we lived by the spreadsheets of Neil Ferguson et al. There's no point in recriminations over the accuracy of the figures at the time, at this point I'm more interested in reviewing the numbers saved, the effects on the economy, how much was lost, as well as the effectiveness of some rules and the pointlessness of others (scotch eggs etc) so if a similar situation ever reoccurs, we are better prepared. What are the benefits? What are the costs?
I'm also interested in understanding how quickly the UK descended into authoritarianism, with police drones flying over the moors trying to catch anyone who dared stray more than 5 miles from their house, and doors kicked in over childrens birthday parties, etc. We effectively had an "enabling act" within a couple of weeks of a crisis being declared - could that be abused in the future? What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again?
These are the questions I want an enquiry to solve. I don't give a rat's ass about the rest.
Although it's perfectly possible that these are not real people. But I see Corbyn has not diverted from his tweets on Gaza to condemn Venezuela...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67637679
The US Republican Party: the best politicians foreign powers can buy....
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-cambridge-police-checks-no-one-is-in-non-essential-aisles-at-supermarket-11971517
You’re quite right. This should all be about lessons learned for the future. The problem is it is all grandstanding KC’s, reputation management and blame apportionment.
I doubt anything worthwhile will come out of it.
Why are they then insisting on a quid pro quo for backing it ?
The President is, though, negotiating.
BIDEN says he wants a deal. “I am willing to make significant compromises on the border.”
Republicans want to continue talking.
Dems’ top negotiator is pessimistic, says GOP is demanding crazy stuff...
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1732532073716465749
Then you have jerks like this.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1731785802156220744
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Christie might be a blowhard, as @SeaShantyIrish2 regularly notes, but at least he is not a coward.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/06/who-won-who-lost-and-who-went-unscathed-at-the-fourth-gop-debate-00130531
..Donald Trump’s rivals could hardly have found a clearer opening to go after him, debating one day after his “dictator” remarks.
Once again — with the exception of Chris Christie, who blasted the rest of the GOP primary field for “failing to speak out” — they passed...
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/03/shami-chakrabarti-defends-jeremy-corbyn-venezuela-remarks
https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-support-for-venezuela-nicolas-maduro-disgusting-says-mike-pompeo/
I wonder if Corbyn thinks Venezuela is 'outside interference' in Guyana, or is he, like some leftists, blaming the US for forcing Venezuela to grab its neighbour's territory? For reasons...
Corbyn's apparent silence on this is appalling, given his apparent fondness for Venezuela.
I can remember, prior to covid, the usual mob with Palestine flags and pics of CheGuevara, under the Grey Monument, collecting signatures or selling Socialist Worker, would also have Venezuelan flags.
I guess stealing land and occupying it is okay as long as you approve of,the regime who is doing it.
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
This is because, while they may well have a legitimate case as asylum seekers, they can’t work if they are in the asylum process.
So the smart move (they think) is to disappear into the black economy.
You could turn the black economy off, but that would upset a lot of people. Some of whom would surprise you.
Like the various Russian bots who sadly appear to have departed, he appears to miss the fact that he has a very limited audience on here because most of us have a brain. Very entertaining to read though!
Otherwise there is only the question of what their job will be in 2025: Opposition MP; director of several companies and a couple of quangos; unemployed has-been. Sadly for most MPs, they will find their talents are not in wide demand so they will need to look for a proper job or graceful retirement on one of those gold-plated public sector pensions they've always railed against.
ETA for Jenrick himself, it starts the Acoba clock on when he can look for other jobs.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
Who couldn't love a man who travelled several hundred miles for a beer and a takeaway curry with Angela Rayner and a few other mates, so as to stick it to The Man?
It may even be that any form of "fun" was felt to be entirely inappropriate given the seriousness of the situation.
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1732521275946357231?t=otGYuBcXhAE2Emt6SEIVGQ&s=19
Biden daren't say this of course, but if there were any sane GOP senators (they mostly voted to acquit Trump, so I have reservations) they might have spotted it for themselves.
Effectively this rubbishes any future Tory decision to try and turn the election into let’s leave the ECHR to stop the boats .