New house construction in 2019 was 151% higher than a decade earlier.
Now you might credit that with the recession in 2009 but house construction in 2018 was also much higher than in 2008, that in 2017 much higher than in 2007 and so all the way back to 2011 and 2001.
New house construction in 2019 was 151% higher than a decade earlier.
Now you might credit that with the recession in 2009 but house construction in 2018 was also much higher than in 2008, that in 2017 much higher than in 2007 and so all the way back to 2011 and 2001.
Was there ever such a lie as Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment'.
And people wonder why homeownership rates fell during Labour's years and are rising now (although not everyone seems to realise or acknowledge they are rising now).
The gall of Labour spokesmen banging on about rent. Labour is responsible for people having to rent more than any other party. Hopefully after another 5 or 10 years we might be able to reverse much of the damage done during Labour's years in office before they get back in and screw it up all over again.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
Government ran broadband is horrific for multiple reasons. Government organised bridges are built all the time.
... or not, as in the case of the 'Garden Bridge'.
I wonder if Boris had remained as London Mayor whether the bridge would have been cancelled or not. Thankfully Boris should be PM for basically this whole decade I expect so he's got time to not just announce projects but actually get them started and built.
People keep forgetting the other bridge Boris cancelled in 2008. The Thames Gateway Bridge between Beckton and Thamesmead.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
I wonder whether that was partly due to families generally being less widely spaced, geographically. My mum was born in the late forties and her father died when she was 11 (late fifties). They had a lot of hardship, but an aunt and uncle in the same village and she's talked about often eating with them and getting vegetables from their garden too. That's harder when aunt and uncle (or whoever) are hundreds of miles away - people are perhaps less willing to send money than share meals and hardship at a distance is much more easily hidden (I get the impression that my maternal grandmother would have been outraged by being seen as a charity case, but there's nothing wrong with eating with your extended family).
I've seen some evidence (qualitative studies) that suggest that this is also how a lot of poorer south asian communities, with more family close by in some of our big cities seem to cope differently to their white counterparts and make less use of benefits.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
So a consequence of welfare policy and admin.
Given how cheap and easily available food is now not to mention the prevalence of obesity and expensive grotty takeaways in the deprived areas of every town I can't see it as an economic problem in the same way that housing is.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
Mr. L, there might be a 'boost' from stockpiling for the coronavirus soon.
I wonder if there has been a protest from the eponymous beer manufacturer over the naming of this new and dreadful illness? I haven't seen anything reported - and of course it would not be the biggest of concerns pertaining to this gathering crisis - but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been. It is bound to hit sales and possibly quite severely. Imagine if the disease was already known and named before the beer was brought to market. Would they have still called it Corona? Hardly. It would be like launching a beverage called Smallpox. You wouldn't do that, not even if your target market was edgy young professionals.
Mr. L, there might be a 'boost' from stockpiling for the coronavirus soon.
I wonder if there has been a protest from the eponymous beer manufacturer over the naming of this new and dreadful illness? I haven't seen anything reported - and of course it would not be the biggest of concerns pertaining to this gathering crisis - but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been. It is bound to hit sales and possibly quite severely. Imagine if the disease was already known and named before the beer was brought to market. Would they have still called it Corona? Hardly. It would be like launching a beverage called Smallpox. You wouldn't do that, not even if your target market was edgy young professionals.
The lager is older true, but coronavirus was named in the 1960s so it'd be hard for them to object to the name now. This outbreak is new, coronavirus itself is not new. It also has the same eytmology - corona being translated to crown which is the logo of the beer and the description of the virus.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
Mr. L, there might be a 'boost' from stockpiling for the coronavirus soon.
I wonder if there has been a protest from the eponymous beer manufacturer over the naming of this new and dreadful illness? I haven't seen anything reported - and of course it would not be the biggest of concerns pertaining to this gathering crisis - but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been. It is bound to hit sales and possibly quite severely. Imagine if the disease was already known and named before the beer was brought to market. Would they have still called it Corona? Hardly. It would be like launching a beverage called Smallpox. You wouldn't do that, not even if your target market was edgy young professionals.
The illness actually doesn't have a name yet. Coronavirus was and is the name given to types of viruses that affect the respiratory tract of mammals, including humans.
Mr. L, there might be a 'boost' from stockpiling for the coronavirus soon.
I wonder if there has been a protest from the eponymous beer manufacturer over the naming of this new and dreadful illness? I haven't seen anything reported - and of course it would not be the biggest of concerns pertaining to this gathering crisis - but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been. It is bound to hit sales and possibly quite severely. Imagine if the disease was already known and named before the beer was brought to market. Would they have still called it Corona? Hardly. It would be like launching a beverage called Smallpox. You wouldn't do that, not even if your target market was edgy young professionals.
Very nice for those who had SF at at between 29 and 37.
My thanks to RN.
I wonder why the 5 Shinners who didn't get elected didn't! Any common factors? Someone, somewhere will no doubt do a piece on second preferences, especially from Sinn Fein.
The five who didn't get elected were all in constituencies where SF is weak and stood only one candidate, not expecting to get a seat.
They fielded two candidates in only four constituencies, and all of them were elected. They could in addition have got a few more if they'd fielded two in more constituencies.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
And what is the reason for the higher number of food banks in France and Germany?
Whether it's intentionally sexist or not, it's a really stupid phrase to use in the context of a party that's never elected a female leader. That is, unless your goal is to rile the sort of person that gets triggered by this (which I suspect is often the case).
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
I am woke - no inverted commas - and proud to be so, however I would like Labour to dial down a bit on the Identity politics. For 2 reasons really. Firstly, not to be complacent, but I think that time will continue to work its progressive magic in this area without an enormous amount of kicking up the backside needed. Secondly, if you get too in-your-face with this stuff it just riles those you most want to influence - i.e. the large numbers of people who are a bit reactionary but in no way Hardcore Deplorables - either that or it gifts opportunities for them to make tedious jokes of the "PC gorn mad" type which if they are in response to a case of PC actually gorning mad, you then have to nod and smile at with your teeth gritted.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
The illness actually doesn't have a name yet. Coronavirus was and is the name given to types of viruses that affect the respiratory tract of mammals, including humans.
Ah OK. Wonder what it will end up being called then and when it will be announced. And who will get to pick a name. You often get public competitions run for naming things but I suppose that would not be at all apt for a serious disease.
The illness actually doesn't have a name yet. Coronavirus was and is the name given to types of viruses that affect the respiratory tract of mammals, including humans.
Ah OK. Wonder what it will end up being called then and when it will be announced. And who will get to pick a name. You often get public competitions run for naming things but I suppose that would not be at all apt for a serious disease.
Its final formal name may still include the name coronavirus. Technically both SARS and MERS are forms of coronavirus and their full name includes coronavirus - but we tend to just say SARS.
Given this has embraced the public imagination as coronvirus I don't see an alternate name like SARS being embraced this time though.
Whether it's intentionally sexist or not, it's a really stupid phrase to use in the context of a party that's never elected a female leader. That is, unless your goal is to rile the sort of person that gets triggered by this (which I suspect is often the case).
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
I am woke - no inverted commas - and proud to be so, however I would like Labour to dial down a bit on the Identity politics. For 2 reasons really. Firstly, not to be complacent, but I think that time will continue to work its progressive magic in this area without an enormous amount of kicking up the backside needed. Secondly, if you get too in-your-face with this stuff it just riles those you most want to influence - i.e. the large numbers of people who are a bit reactionary but in no way Hardcore Deplorables - either that or it gifts opportunities for them to make tedious jokes of the "PC gorn mad" type which if they are in response to a case of PC actually gorning mad, you then have to nod and smile at with your teeth gritted.
Kinabalu, you are a very annoying person because it is very annoying that one cannot get annoyed with you. Believe me, I`ve tried. Your wife must tear her hair out.
Admitting you are "woke" - inverted commas - should make me very cross with you. But you seem very teflon in this respect, as in all others.
The lager is older true, but coronavirus was named in the 1960s so it'd be hard for them to object to the name now. This outbreak is new, coronavirus itself is not new. It also has the same eytmology - corona being translated to crown which is the logo of the beer and the description of the virus.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
It can work in that slightly perverse way, this is true. Speaking for myself, though, I think I am less likely now to order a Corona than I would have been. Yes, it is on my mind, you're right there, but it's in a negative way. So I would (I think) be tilted towards a Becks, say, or a Peroni. They all taste the same after all. Still, not an issue in practice right now, it being winter and therefore not a time for cold lager of any description. The acid test will come later in the year, the summer months, if the pandemic is still on by then - which of course we all hope it won't be.
I`m looking to lay Bloomberg. Which is better value - lay at 8.2 to be next president or 4.2 to be Dem nominee?
Its essentially 2 bets in one.
In the event of him becoming the nominee do you think he has a better or worse than 50% chance of becoming President?
I`d say "better" but I am interested in what YOU think.
If you think better then lay at 4.2 would be my guess?
I'm not an expert at laying bets but unless you're already covered on this market I'm assuming you'll need to put in cash to match your potential losses here? In which case you'll get a lower return from 8.2 and a lower forecast return based on you thinking a better than 50% chance?
The illness actually doesn't have a name yet. Coronavirus was and is the name given to types of viruses that affect the respiratory tract of mammals, including humans.
Ah OK. Wonder what it will end up being called then and when it will be announced. And who will get to pick a name. You often get public competitions run for naming things but I suppose that would not be at all apt for a serious disease.
Its final formal name may still include the name coronavirus. Technically both SARS and MERS are forms of coronavirus and their full name includes coronavirus - but we tend to just say SARS.
Given this has embraced the public imagination as coronvirus I don't see an alternate name like SARS being embraced this time though.
2019-nCoV is the recognised designation in the science literature (2019 novel Corona Virus)
Urgh I can't stand the PJ Masks. My daughters love them, but its the same script every time. One of them wants to go off and do their own thing before they realise that doing what their friends were saying all along was the right thing to do so now it is "time to be a hero" and stop being an obstinate idiot.
Hmm, maybe there is a lesson there for politics . . .
The illness actually doesn't have a name yet. Coronavirus was and is the name given to types of viruses that affect the respiratory tract of mammals, including humans.
Ah OK. Wonder what it will end up being called then and when it will be announced. And who will get to pick a name. You often get public competitions run for naming things but I suppose that would not be at all apt for a serious disease.
Its final formal name may still include the name coronavirus. Technically both SARS and MERS are forms of coronavirus and their full name includes coronavirus - but we tend to just say SARS.
Given this has embraced the public imagination as coronvirus I don't see an alternate name like SARS being embraced this time though.
2019-nCoV is the recognised designation in the science literature (2019 novel Corona Virus)
I thought that was a placeholder name? But given how much has been written about it already it might not make sense to replace it.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
And what is the reason for the higher number of food banks in France and Germany?
The lager is older true, but coronavirus was named in the 1960s so it'd be hard for them to object to the name now. This outbreak is new, coronavirus itself is not new. It also has the same eytmology - corona being translated to crown which is the logo of the beer and the description of the virus.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
It can work in that slightly perverse way, this is true. Speaking for myself, though, I think I am less likely now to order a Corona than I would have been. Yes, it is on my mind, you're right there, but it's in a negative way. So I would (I think) be tilted towards a Becks, say, or a Peroni. They all taste the same after all. Still, not an issue in practice right now, it being winter and therefore not a time for cold lager of any description. The acid test will come later in the year, the summer months, if the pandemic is still on by then - which of course we all hope it won't be.
I have disagreed with you on several occasions, but on this you are right!
The lager is older true, but coronavirus was named in the 1960s so it'd be hard for them to object to the name now. This outbreak is new, coronavirus itself is not new. It also has the same eytmology - corona being translated to crown which is the logo of the beer and the description of the virus.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
It can work in that slightly perverse way, this is true. Speaking for myself, though, I think I am less likely now to order a Corona than I would have been. Yes, it is on my mind, you're right there, but it's in a negative way. So I would (I think) be tilted towards a Becks, say, or a Peroni. They all taste the same after all. Still, not an issue in practice right now, it being winter and therefore not a time for cold lager of any description. The acid test will come later in the year, the summer months, if the pandemic is still on by then - which of course we all hope it won't be.
If Corona were a small scale English real ale brewery, instead of large scale Mexican lager, there's a decent chance that they'd wait a respectful period of time and then bring out a special brew called Virus.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
Labour have a strategy problem with issues like this. Their missing votes are: a huge group of people who if they voted would vote Labour but don't vote, and, the group they neglect most, the middle solid working class who think, rightly or wrongly, that foodbanks help the very people they despise most - who spend money on drink, fags and drugs and then want a bailout. If you have an honest talk with foodbank volunteers you will sometimes get the same picture.
The same working class group is appalled and astonished that anyone ever can get more on benefits than they do by working. This seems still to take Labour by surprise. This group knows perfectly well that unemployment happens but that is not the same as three generations of a family none of whom have ever tried to work.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
The lager is older true, but coronavirus was named in the 1960s so it'd be hard for them to object to the name now. This outbreak is new, coronavirus itself is not new. It also has the same eytmology - corona being translated to crown which is the logo of the beer and the description of the virus.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
It can work in that slightly perverse way, this is true. Speaking for myself, though, I think I am less likely now to order a Corona than I would have been. Yes, it is on my mind, you're right there, but it's in a negative way. So I would (I think) be tilted towards a Becks, say, or a Peroni. They all taste the same after all. Still, not an issue in practice right now, it being winter and therefore not a time for cold lager of any description. The acid test will come later in the year, the summer months, if the pandemic is still on by then - which of course we all hope it won't be.
If Corona were a small scale English real ale brewery, instead of large scale Mexican lager, there's a decent chance that they'd wait a respectful period of time and then bring out a special brew called Virus.
The illness actually doesn't have a name yet. Coronavirus was and is the name given to types of viruses that affect the respiratory tract of mammals, including humans.
Ah OK. Wonder what it will end up being called then and when it will be announced. And who will get to pick a name. You often get public competitions run for naming things but I suppose that would not be at all apt for a serious disease.
Might be worth copyrighting Virusy McVirusface just in case, though.
The French ski resort from where the "super spreader" spread the virus is called Les Contamines-Montjoie, so the recipients were contaminated at Contamines.
Kinabalu, you are a very annoying person because it is very annoying that one cannot get annoyed with you. Believe me, I`ve tried. Your wife must tear her hair out.
Admitting you are "woke" - inverted commas - should make me very cross with you. But you seem very teflon in this respect, as in all others.
You really ought to be a politician you know.
Make me sound like a "Left Boris". Double edged compliment if ever there was one, but I take it anyway.
Might even risk my "Lament For Laura" soon then. That will test your reserves of goodwill.
I`m looking to lay Bloomberg. Which is better value - lay at 8.2 to be next president or 4.2 to be Dem nominee?
Its essentially 2 bets in one.
In the event of him becoming the nominee do you think he has a better or worse than 50% chance of becoming President?
More to the point, it's less expensive to lay at 4.2.
It depends upon whether you have a book surely? If you don't have a book yet then yes it is, but my understanding [and I've never done this so may be wrong] is that if you already have lays on a market then it is "cheaper" to continue to lay in the same market since the bets will offset each other. You can't lose both bets, so if you've already got capital tied up laying one then that same capital can cover laying the other.
I`m looking to lay Bloomberg. Which is better value - lay at 8.2 to be next president or 4.2 to be Dem nominee?
Its essentially 2 bets in one.
In the event of him becoming the nominee do you think he has a better or worse than 50% chance of becoming President?
More to the point, it's less expensive to lay at 4.2.
It depends upon whether you have a book surely? If you don't have a book yet then yes it is, but my understanding [and I've never done this so may be wrong] is that if you already have lays on a market then it is "cheaper" to continue to lay in the same market since the bets will offset each other. You can't lose both bets, so if you've already got capital tied up laying one then that same capital can cover laying the other.
Is that right?
True, the cash cost depends upon the current state of you existing book.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
Nandy was a big factor, probably a decisive factor, in me joining the Labour party. And yes, her handling of these issues is one of the things I like about her.
Pre-empting anyone citing her put-down of Piers Morgan as a counter-example, that was understandable. She came on the show to talk about the Labour leadership and he instead banged on for ages about how Meghan Markle wasn't treated any worse than Kate Middleton. Ideally Nandy would have pointed to the abundant evidence to the contrary rather than made reference to Morgan's race and gender, but I can understand her just wanting to move as quickly as possible onto issues that actually matter.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
Yeah, see how difficult the nuance is? "Even" I didn't manage it first time.
Let's try again. They oppose policies that lead to perceived relative increases in the necessity of food banks. Simply monitoring the number of people who use them is a a crude but powerful concrete illustration of how Tory policy fails those most vulnerable.
Also, as others have pointed out, the Left believes that societal safety nets should be operated by the State, not the voluntary sector. And they would, from a philosophical point of view, prefer interventions that didn't require people to physically ask for handouts.
Whether it's intentionally sexist or not, it's a really stupid phrase to use in the context of a party that's never elected a female leader. That is, unless your goal is to rile the sort of person that gets triggered by this (which I suspect is often the case).
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
I am woke - no inverted commas - and proud to be so, however I would like Labour to dial down a bit on the Identity politics. For 2 reasons really. Firstly, not to be complacent, but I think that time will continue to work its progressive magic in this area without an enormous amount of kicking up the backside needed. Secondly, if you get too in-your-face with this stuff it just riles those you most want to influence - i.e. the large numbers of people who are a bit reactionary but in no way Hardcore Deplorables - either that or it gifts opportunities for them to make tedious jokes of the "PC gorn mad" type which if they are in response to a case of PC actually gorning mad, you then have to nod and smile at with your teeth gritted.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Ha! A nice observation. I personally prefer my wokeists to be as honest, loud, and proud as possible - they're like a giant unpaid, unsleeping army converting the general public to Conservatism. Since they're congenitally incapable of reining in their impulse to tell everyone how awesome they are and how awful the heretics must be, I think I'll get my wish...
Its final formal name may still include the name coronavirus. Technically both SARS and MERS are forms of coronavirus and their full name includes coronavirus - but we tend to just say SARS.
Given this has embraced the public imagination as coronvirus I don't see an alternate name like SARS being embraced this time though.
No, I agree. There was the early "Snake Flu" moniker but that did not get traction. So I would have thought what happens here is that the 'virus' bit gets dropped - it adds little - and we go with the straightforward Corona. In which case, I DO think the beer could have a problem longer term. I'd be selling my shares in whatever company makes it if I had them in my portfolio. Recommend people who do hold them at least give the matter some thought.
Corbyn: I think we should make broadband free. Media: Madman, utter insanity, it could never work.
Johnson: I want to build a 30-mile bridge across a 1000-foot-deep stretch of water that has a load of explosives dumped somewhere at the bottom. Media: Jolly good old chap! When?
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
This is very exciting work on electrocatalysis with significant implications for large scale energy storage (or the development of synthetic fuels):
Fluidized Electrocatalysis https://www.chinesechemsoc.org/doi/10.31635/ccschem.019.201900065 ...The particle-average current output for fluidized Pt/C is taken to be the average current produced during a collision event, which is calculated by dividing the total Faraday charges produced in a current spike ( i.e., the area of the spike) over its duration. The particle-average current output from the fluidized OER is calculated to be 6 × 10 −10 A based on the analysis of 100 transient spikes on high-resolution chronoamperometric profiles. This is about three orders of magnitude higher than the particle-average efficiency in the fixed OER, which highlights the potential of fluidized electrocatalysis. There should be plenty of room for improvement to scale up the collective current output of fluidized reactions, such as by optimizing flow profile of electrolyte and the geometry of the electrode and reaction vessels....
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Its final formal name may still include the name coronavirus. Technically both SARS and MERS are forms of coronavirus and their full name includes coronavirus - but we tend to just say SARS.
Given this has embraced the public imagination as coronvirus I don't see an alternate name like SARS being embraced this time though.
No, I agree. There was the early "Snake Flu" moniker but that did not get traction. So I would have thought what happens here is that the 'virus' bit gets dropped - it adds little - and we go with the straightforward Corona. In which case, I DO think the beer could have a problem longer term. I'd be selling my shares in whatever company makes it if I had them in my portfolio. Recommend people who do hold them at least give the matter some thought.
AB InBev?
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
Surely the reason for food banks becoming a thing is because of the delays in the benefits system, increased use of benefit sanctions and the denial of subsidence to some groups such as asylum seekers?
And what is the reason for the higher number of food banks in France and Germany?
Presumably to do with how their own welfare state operates. Systems that require a record of contributions often leave groups of the population unserved.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
Nandy was a big factor, probably a decisive factor, in me joining the Labour party. And yes, her handling of these issues is one of the things I like about her.
Pre-empting anyone citing her put-down of Piers Morgan as a counter-example, that was understandable. She came on the show to talk about the Labour leadership and he instead banged on for ages about how Meghan Markle wasn't treated any worse than Kate Middleton. Ideally Nandy would have pointed to the abundant evidence to the contrary rather than made reference to Morgan's race and gender, but I can understand her just wanting to move as quickly as possible onto issues that actually matter.
The problem is that Labour's manifest ideological hostility to people of 'Morgan's race and gender' is a major reason why they lost millions of their votes. Any other issue she discussed is irrelevant compared to a Labour leadership contender once again shooting her own party in its Achilles' heel on live TV.
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
Might be worth copyrighting Virusy McVirusface just in case, though.
That said a lot about the public, didn't it? Indeed, looking back, one wonders whether it presaged the rise of populism to a certain degree - "Had enough of experts" etc - if one had been sufficiently insightful and alert.
OT this Post Office scandal could blow up. For two decades, the Post Office pursued hundreds of its workers over accounting discrepancies with its Horizon IT system, accusing people of theft, fraud or false accounting. Many were fired, made bankrupt or even sent to prison. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51446463
Yes, that's a massive scandal, really not a good look that they immediately blamed hundreds of small business franchisees rather than look for deficiencies in their own central accounting systems - just after they'd changed the system.
It's going to cost them a lot more than this judgement over the long term, people who have been on the receiving end deserve exemplary compensation, and the PO needs to be considered a vexatious litigator by the courts in future. I quite like the American concept of double and triple damages in cases like these.
What's even worse is that the person in charge when this fiasco happened is still there, has made the usual weaselly apology and has even been given an honour for her services to - well, God knows what. In any sane society, she should have been sacked long ago.
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Jesus. I'm sorry to hear that - try and take it easy.
OT this Post Office scandal could blow up. For two decades, the Post Office pursued hundreds of its workers over accounting discrepancies with its Horizon IT system, accusing people of theft, fraud or false accounting. Many were fired, made bankrupt or even sent to prison. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51446463
Yes, that's a massive scandal, really not a good look that they immediately blamed hundreds of small business franchisees rather than look for deficiencies in their own central accounting systems - just after they'd changed the system.
It's going to cost them a lot more than this judgement over the long term, people who have been on the receiving end deserve exemplary compensation, and the PO needs to be considered a vexatious litigator by the courts in future. I quite like the American concept of double and triple damages in cases like these.
What's even worse is that the person in charge when this fiasco happened is still there, has made the usual weaselly apology and has even been given an honour for her services to - well, God knows what. In any sane society, she should have been sacked long ago.
It's within the government's rights to remove her honours - which even if they can't do anything else would show something.
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Jesus. I'm sorry to hear that - try and take it easy.
Thanks for the concern, but as I say it isn't confirmed case nor am I overly worried at the moment. It might well just be somebody who is displaying similar symptoms and the authorities have taken an aggressive approach to informing people who might have been there.
I was only really mentioning it as I think this is going to be commonplace over the next few months.
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Well that was the serious and sober "FT type" objection - and I shared it to some extent - but I recall much along "Pie in the Sky from Magic Grandpa" lines.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
Nandy was a big factor, probably a decisive factor, in me joining the Labour party. And yes, her handling of these issues is one of the things I like about her.
Pre-empting anyone citing her put-down of Piers Morgan as a counter-example, that was understandable. She came on the show to talk about the Labour leadership and he instead banged on for ages about how Meghan Markle wasn't treated any worse than Kate Middleton. Ideally Nandy would have pointed to the abundant evidence to the contrary rather than made reference to Morgan's race and gender, but I can understand her just wanting to move as quickly as possible onto issues that actually matter.
The problem is that Labour's manifest ideological hostility to people of 'Morgan's race and gender' is a major reason why they lost millions of their votes. Any other issue she discussed is irrelevant compared to a Labour leadership contender once again shooting her own party in its Achilles' heel on live TV.
If she did it in a general election campaign, you would have a point, but I have seen enough of her to be confident that she understands that. This incident will be long forgotten before the next general election.
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Well that was the serious and sober "FT type" objection - and I shared it to some extent - but I recall much along "Pie in the Sky from Magic Grandpa" lines.
It was pie in the sky because it was yet another (on top of countless others) unfunded proposal with broken circular logic that would break a part of the economy that was working well.
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Jesus. I'm sorry to hear that - try and take it easy.
Thanks for the concern, but as I say it isn't confirmed case nor am I overly worried at the moment. It might well just be somebody who is displaying similar symptoms and the authorities have taken an aggressive approach to informing people who might have been there.
I was only really mentioning it as I think this is going to be commonplace over the next few months.
Understood. I think from your posts that we share a bit of a nervous disposition, so I sympathize with the uncertainty at any rate.
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Jesus. I'm sorry to hear that - try and take it easy.
Thanks for the concern, but as I say it isn't confirmed case nor am I overly worried at the moment. It might well just be somebody who is displaying similar symptoms and the authorities have taken an aggressive approach to informing people who might have been there.
I was only really mentioning it as I think this is going to be commonplace over the next few months.
Hasn't the "super spreader" recovered now? Bloke at a conference in Singapore now ok.
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Jesus. I'm sorry to hear that - try and take it easy.
Thanks for the concern, but as I say it isn't confirmed case nor am I overly worried at the moment. It might well just be somebody who is displaying similar symptoms and the authorities have taken an aggressive approach to informing people who might have been there.
I was only really mentioning it as I think this is going to be commonplace over the next few months.
Hasn't the "super spreader" recovered now? Bloke at a conference in Singapore now ok.
Yes. I have to say I don't think it is right that the Mail have named him.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
I doubt most people would use food banks if they could avoid it. There will always be some bad un's that abuse the system but will be in a minority. Hard to say how you would do if you had next to no cash and were depressed etc, especially when you have plenty. I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance. Must be better ways than having food banks.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
I doubt most people would use food banks if they could avoid it. There will always be some bad un's that abuse the system but will be in a minority. Hard to say how you would do if you had next to no cash and were depressed etc, especially when you have plenty. I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance. Must be better ways than having food banks.
I'd be curious to know what better solutions you have since all countries tend to have food banks. Simply giving people more money isn't a solution when that money can likely go straight up their nose or on drugs, alcohol or gambling rather than food. At least with food banks we know they are getting food - and what can be better than that?
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm on the left, and I think charity is better than the same help supplied by the state, because of the personal warmth that comes with it.
But it is wrong for the state to shirk its responsibilities, using the excuse that charity will fill in the gaps. It won't. If the state spends less, charitable donations won't go up by the same amount.
Plus, even if there were enough charity to go around, it's not something that you can rely on if you're in need. Especially if you're an ugly middle-aged homeless man, who will face far more suspicion than good will.
Days since Labour anti-semitism problem...reset the clock.
The latest campaign video from Momentum shows Rebecca Long-Bailey setting out the need to have a “positive vision of Britain can be post-Brexit”. It stars an audience member explaining how the Labour vote was split in both directions by Brexit. Neither Long-Bailey nor Momentum spotted that the member asking the question appears to be Maria Carroll – a former candidate who ran a secret Facebook group advising Holocaust-denying members how to beat charges of antisemitism.
The lager is older true, but coronavirus was named in the 1960s so it'd be hard for them to object to the name now. This outbreak is new, coronavirus itself is not new. It also has the same eytmology - corona being translated to crown which is the logo of the beer and the description of the virus.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
It can work in that slightly perverse way, this is true. Speaking for myself, though, I think I am less likely now to order a Corona than I would have been. Yes, it is on my mind, you're right there, but it's in a negative way. So I would (I think) be tilted towards a Becks, say, or a Peroni. They all taste the same after all. Still, not an issue in practice right now, it being winter and therefore not a time for cold lager of any description. The acid test will come later in the year, the summer months, if the pandemic is still on by then - which of course we all hope it won't be.
Corona tastes nothing like Becks or Peroni, assume you are not a beer drinker.
I have just been contacted to say that I have visited a location where they now testing for Coronavirus and obviously report it should I start to display any symptoms. I don't think it has been made public yet nor it is confirmed case, so not going to say where.
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
Jesus. I'm sorry to hear that - try and take it easy.
Thanks for the concern, but as I say it isn't confirmed case nor am I overly worried at the moment. It might well just be somebody who is displaying similar symptoms and the authorities have taken an aggressive approach to informing people who might have been there.
I was only really mentioning it as I think this is going to be commonplace over the next few months.
Hasn't the "super spreader" recovered now? Bloke at a conference in Singapore now ok.
...the Mail...
Busted. I promise I have no idea what Kim Kardashian is up to...
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
Apparently Xi is saying their response has gone too far and is damaging the economy too much.
China is probably the only country in the world to have both the resource and will power to take such action. If they can't keep it up for a couple of months no-one can.
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
Would you say the implementation of universal credit has resulted in more, fewer or about the same amount of people 'falling between the cracks'?
Corona is definitely one of the better lagers, it's a summer drink mind. One for supping outside with a lemon slice.
Though the traditional purpose of the lime/lemon slice means it has no reason to actually be drank with it in this country. Its as nonsensical as a waiter offering for you to try a screwcapped wine before you drink it - it can't possibly be corked.
But I still prefer Corona with lime. Traditions are fun even if they're not necessary.
On topic did Labour plan a leadership campaign like this to persuade people that the race for the Democratic nomination was interesting after all and not as depressing as it first appears?
This is not a campaign, it is a procession, in fact 2 processions. The thought of this going on for another 2 months is not a happy one. Can everyone except Starmer and Rayner not just withdraw so that we can have an opposition back?
Always possible that someone else will take off, but it looks marginal at best, so theres something in what you say.
Comments
Now you might credit that with the recession in 2009 but house construction in 2018 was also much higher than in 2008, that in 2017 much higher than in 2007 and so all the way back to 2011 and 2001.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/datasets/outputintheconstructionindustry
Was there ever such a lie as Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment'.
The gall of Labour spokesmen banging on about rent. Labour is responsible for people having to rent more than any other party. Hopefully after another 5 or 10 years we might be able to reverse much of the damage done during Labour's years in office before they get back in and screw it up all over again.
I've seen some evidence (qualitative studies) that suggest that this is also how a lot of poorer south asian communities, with more family close by in some of our big cities seem to cope differently to their white counterparts and make less use of benefits.
Given how cheap and easily available food is now not to mention the prevalence of obesity and expensive grotty takeaways in the deprived areas of every town I can't see it as an economic problem in the same way that housing is.
When will they give up attempting to form a Government and allow Sinn Fein to come first next time round.
Though I expect them not to make a big deal about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Corona sales if anything get a small boost rather than take a hit due to this outbreak. The old saying the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about has an element of truth. I imagine a number of people now are buying the Mexical lager precisely because they're either thinking about it, or making a joke about it.
They fielded two candidates in only four constituencies, and all of them were elected. They could in addition have got a few more if they'd fielded two in more constituencies.
In the event of him becoming the nominee do you think he has a better or worse than 50% chance of becoming President?
Given this has embraced the public imagination as coronvirus I don't see an alternate name like SARS being embraced this time though.
Admitting you are "woke" - inverted commas - should make me very cross with you. But you seem very teflon in this respect, as in all others.
You really ought to be a politician you know.
Also if he loses the nomination he could conceivably still win the presidency as an independent.
I'm not an expert at laying bets but unless you're already covered on this market I'm assuming you'll need to put in cash to match your potential losses here? In which case you'll get a lower return from 8.2 and a lower forecast return based on you thinking a better than 50% chance?
Someone else may be able to advise better.
Hmm, maybe there is a lesson there for politics . . .
I have disagreed with you on several occasions, but on this you are right!
If your only bets are election night you don't have that information.
The same working class group is appalled and astonished that anyone ever can get more on benefits than they do by working. This seems still to take Labour by surprise. This group knows perfectly well that unemployment happens but that is not the same as three generations of a family none of whom have ever tried to work.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
Might even risk my "Lament For Laura" soon then. That will test your reserves of goodwill.
Is that right?
Pre-empting anyone citing her put-down of Piers Morgan as a counter-example, that was understandable. She came on the show to talk about the Labour leadership and he instead banged on for ages about how Meghan Markle wasn't treated any worse than Kate Middleton. Ideally Nandy would have pointed to the abundant evidence to the contrary rather than made reference to Morgan's race and gender, but I can understand her just wanting to move as quickly as possible onto issues that actually matter.
Let's try again. They oppose policies that lead to perceived relative increases in the necessity of food banks. Simply monitoring the number of people who use them is a a crude but powerful concrete illustration of how Tory policy fails those most vulnerable.
Also, as others have pointed out, the Left believes that societal safety nets should be operated by the State, not the voluntary sector. And they would, from a philosophical point of view, prefer interventions that didn't require people to physically ask for handouts.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Fluidized Electrocatalysis
https://www.chinesechemsoc.org/doi/10.31635/ccschem.019.201900065
...The particle-average current output for fluidized Pt/C is taken to be the average current produced during a collision event, which is calculated by dividing the total Faraday charges produced in a current spike ( i.e., the area of the spike) over its duration. The particle-average current output from the fluidized OER is calculated to be 6 × 10 −10 A based on the analysis of 100 transient spikes on high-resolution chronoamperometric profiles. This is about three orders of magnitude higher than the particle-average efficiency in the fixed OER, which highlights the potential of fluidized electrocatalysis. There should be plenty of room for improvement to scale up the collective current output of fluidized reactions, such as by optimizing flow profile of electrolyte and the geometry of the electrode and reaction vessels....
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1227184947775053824?s=20
I guess it is something we are all going to get used to.
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1227145939959402496
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
Public health epidemiologist says other countries should consider adopting China-style containment measures
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/11/coronavirus-expert-warns-infection-could-reach-60-of-worlds-population
That said a lot about the public, didn't it? Indeed, looking back, one wonders whether it presaged the rise of populism to a certain degree - "Had enough of experts" etc - if one had been sufficiently insightful and alert.
I was only really mentioning it as I think this is going to be commonplace over the next few months.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/michael-bloomberg-calls-for-bringing-presidential-back-78470725981
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance.
Must be better ways than having food banks.
But it is wrong for the state to shirk its responsibilities, using the excuse that charity will fill in the gaps. It won't. If the state spends less, charitable donations won't go up by the same amount.
Plus, even if there were enough charity to go around, it's not something that you can rely on if you're in need. Especially if you're an ugly middle-aged homeless man, who will face far more suspicion than good will.
The latest campaign video from Momentum shows Rebecca Long-Bailey setting out the need to have a “positive vision of Britain can be post-Brexit”. It stars an audience member explaining how the Labour vote was split in both directions by Brexit. Neither Long-Bailey nor Momentum spotted that the member asking the question appears to be Maria Carroll – a former candidate who ran a secret Facebook group advising Holocaust-denying members how to beat charges of antisemitism.
https://order-order.com/2020/02/11/long-bailey-video-features-candidate-advised-holocaust-deniers-deny-antisemitism-charges/
I see Brexit is going well......
I think, anyway. Happy to be corrected by someone with more of a background n these matters.
Live TV audience for Academy Awards broadcast down 20% from 2019, with lack of host considered handicap
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/11/oscars-tv-viewing-figures-sinks-to-all-time-low
Its the individuals job in the first instance to help themselves. Its the states job in the last instance to be the last resort provider of support.
China is probably the only country in the world to have both the resource and will power to take such action. If they can't keep it up for a couple of months no-one can.
But I still prefer Corona with lime. Traditions are fun even if they're not necessary.