On British Airways, Starmer says the company is trying to force through the hiring of 30,000 employees on worse terms. Will the PM personally intervene and make clear like actions like those at BA will not be allowed to stand?
What exactly does Starmer want the government and BA to do? Let the airline go bust? Sack the staff completely without rehiring them? Get taxpayers to subsidise BA staff, many of whom earn a lot more than the median taxpayer, and incidentally thus subsidising CO2 emissions?
It really is the most stupid line of argument. If a company's revenues have fallen off a cliff, they have fallen off a cliff. There's no pain-free way to scrabble back up the cliff and keep the same number of staff on the same salaries.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I don't thing mildly disparaging nicknames like Frog, Kraut or indeed Rosbif, Limey and Pom matter too much. We are fairly equal status rival nations. Nicknames based on more unequal historical status, of which there are plenty are not so acceptable, particularly when racially tinged.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a big problem. It just sounded a bit odd to me in the context of the post and the poster I was replying to.
I do perceive a difference between Kiwi and Frog though. Perhaps this is just me but if I met an NZ person I would feel OK to refer to them to their face as a Kiwi. I mean, I probably wouldn't, I'd be far more likely to use their name, or say "Oh so you're from New Zealand" but I can see myself saying "Oh, so you're a Kiwi" without feeling too awkward about it. But the equivalent situation with a FR person, there is NO WAY that I'd say "Ah, right, so you're a Frog then." I just would never do that.
More seriously, it's not so much the unlikeliness that Birmingham would win the bid, just the supercilious sniff that they had the effrontery to even try.
Executive summary: It was pretty chaotic everywhere.
Dare I suggest that a government that can handle something as major as a pandemic well has far too much redundancy in its capacity and is unacceptably expensive every other year?
Yes, and Covid-19 was very much a novel disease in many ways, so I think a fair amount of chaos in the early response was inevitable. What is certainly true is the commonly-expressed view that the early UK response was awful compared with other European countries doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Relative mortality figures may say otherwise. Obviously some countries, particularly USA, Brazil etc seem to have done even worse.
Tut tut - you should know better than assert that differences in the relative mortality figures (which in any case are not accurately known yet) were all due to differences in government response rather than other factors. I trust your logic is more sound than that in your professional work!
I didn't say differences in mortality were solely due to effectiveness of various governments, but they are surely one component of the explanation.
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
If you are Cummings and want a complete remaking of the levers of power what better prize than the end of the Union? Then you can remake England in thine own image.
Do we know what Dominic Cummings‘ attitude is towards the Union? He used to blog a lot didn’t he? And publish lots of odd bits and bobs. Is anyone aware if he has ever said anything for or against the Union?
I'd say get a retired supreme court justice in for it but I understand they're all enemies of the people and the gov committed to reexamine the relationship with the courts, so an ex judge is probably a no go.
On British Airways, Starmer says the company is trying to force through the hiring of 30,000 employees on worse terms. Will the PM personally intervene and make clear like actions like those at BA will not be allowed to stand?
What exactly does Starmer want the government and BA to do? Let the airline go bust? Sack the staff completely without rehiring them? Get taxpayers to subsidise BA staff, many of whom earn a lot more than the median taxpayer, and incidentally thus subsidising CO2 emissions?
It really is the most stupid line of argument. If a company's revenues have fallen off a cliff, they have fallen off a cliff. There's no pain-free way to scrabble back up the cliff and keep the same number of staff on the same salaries.
The problem for Boris and the Government is that if BA are going to use Covid as an excuse to remove grandfathered employment terms a lot of other companies are going to do the same..
Now there are a lot of rational reasons for doing so but it could mean that unemployment rates for those aged 50+ could be sky high.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
I seem to recall a football match in Istanbul where the (I think, may be maligning) Liverpool supporters, much provoked (IIRC) by the locals, sang that 'They'd rather be a P.... than a Turk'.
But intertestingly, they'd rather not a be Cockney (which also scans).
They have some limits after all.
Slightly odd isn't it. There isn't a Cockney team, as such. West Ham are, or certainly were, too far East, Millwall the wrong side of the River, Arsenal and Spurs North London.
More seriously, it's not so much the unlikeliness that Birmingham would win the bid, just the supercilious sniff that they had the effrontery to even try.
Perhaps. Atalanta has the worlds busiest airport at least. I think its part of British exceptionalism and lack of understanding of the world that we think Birmingham is a potential Olympic city. Like the vast majority of cities on the planet, its not.
On British Airways, Starmer says the company is trying to force through the hiring of 30,000 employees on worse terms. Will the PM personally intervene and make clear like actions like those at BA will not be allowed to stand?
What exactly does Starmer want the government and BA to do? Let the airline go bust? Sack the staff completely without rehiring them? Get taxpayers to subsidise BA staff, many of whom earn a lot more than the median taxpayer, and incidentally thus subsidising CO2 emissions?
It really is the most stupid line of argument. If a company's revenues have fallen off a cliff, they have fallen off a cliff. There's no pain-free way to scrabble back up the cliff and keep the same number of staff on the same salaries.
The problem for Boris and the Government is that if BA are going to use Covid as an excuse to remove grandfathered employment terms a lot of other companies are going to do the same..
Now there are a lot of rational reasons for doing so but it could mean that unemployment rates for those aged 50+ could be sky high.
Remind me, what demographic votes Conservative? And against Scottish independence?
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I don't thing mildly disparaging nicknames like Frog, Kraut or indeed Rosbif, Limey and Pom matter too much. We are fairly equal status rival nations. Nicknames based on more unequal historical status, of which there are plenty are not so acceptable, particularly when racially tinged.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a big problem. It just sounded a bit odd to me in the context of the post and the poster I was replying to.
I do perceive a difference between Kiwi and Frog though. Perhaps this is just me but if I met an NZ person I would feel OK to refer to them to their face as a Kiwi. I mean, I probably wouldn't, I'd be far more likely to use their name, or say "Oh so you're from New Zealand" but I can see myself saying "Oh, so you're a Kiwi" without feeling too awkward about it. But the equivalent situation with a FR person, there is NO WAY that I'd say "Ah, right, so you're a Frog then." I just would never do that.
To be fair, my NZ relations refer to themselves as Kiwis. I have never though, heard a Frenchman refer to himself as either a Frog or a Grenouille.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
I seem to recall a football match in Istanbul where the (I think, may be maligning) Liverpool supporters, much provoked (IIRC) by the locals, sang that 'They'd rather be a P.... than a Turk'.
But intertestingly, they'd rather not a be Cockney (which also scans).
They have some limits after all.
Slightly odd isn't it. There isn't a Cockney team, as such. West Ham are, or certainly were, too far East, Millwall the wrong side of the River, Arsenal and Spurs North London.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
O/T interesting poll of American students in the daily Axios summary:
76% of the 800 college students polled (margin of error: +/- 3.5 percentage points) say they will return to campus if they have the option. 66% say they would attend in-person classes. A striking majority say they're planning to forgo the fun on campus: 79% say they wouldn't attend parties, and 71% say they wouldn't be sports spectators.
This is intriguing as it does suggest the same sort of shift in attitudes that we're seeing as people consider whether to go to pubs, restaurants, etc. If students are up for education but wary of parties or sport, then the same focus on essentials and reluctance to take risks to have fun will probably be true of the wider population.
It's rather sad that it's come to this, but worth noting.
I havent read it but would assume that is a perfectly reasonable upper estimate if a significant second wave and it turns out to be worse in winter than summer. Within a couple of weeks of it taking off here we had five weeks of glorious sunshine in most of the country. If the second wave hits in November we have several months of winter to get through.
And if Cummings is seen to have brought lockdown forward saving many lives I look forward to your posting that finding
All the reports so far suggest the lockdown was scientists/data modellers first, Cummings persuaded later, but he wasn't able to get Boris to take action till a further week later.
In this timeline, Labour were calling for a lockdown well before Cummings had what's described in the Times as his "Domoscene conversion.”
I've not seen anything that contradicts that timeline, but if you do have any Cummings quotes from before I'd be curious to see them.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I don't thing mildly disparaging nicknames like Frog, Kraut or indeed Rosbif, Limey and Pom matter too much. We are fairly equal status rival nations. Nicknames based on more unequal historical status, of which there are plenty are not so acceptable, particularly when racially tinged.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a big problem. It just sounded a bit odd to me in the context of the post and the poster I was replying to.
I do perceive a difference between Kiwi and Frog though. Perhaps this is just me but if I met an NZ person I would feel OK to refer to them to their face as a Kiwi. I mean, I probably wouldn't, I'd be far more likely to use their name, or say "Oh so you're from New Zealand" but I can see myself saying "Oh, so you're a Kiwi" without feeling too awkward about it. But the equivalent situation with a FR person, there is NO WAY that I'd say "Ah, right, so you're a Frog then." I just would never do that.
To be fair, my NZ relations refer to themselves as Kiwis. I have never though, heard a Frenchman refer to himself as either a Frog or a Grenouille.
That's exactly my point. Or my perception rather. Frog vs Kiwi is not a good comparison. Frog has a derogatory feel. It's like Kraut.
I havent read it but would assume that is a perfectly reasonable upper estimate if a significant second wave and it turns out to be worse in winter than summer. Within a couple of weeks of it taking off here we had five weeks of glorious sunshine in most of the country. If the second wave hits in November we have several months of winter to get through.
And we won't be able to lock things down a second time as if you do the hospitality industry may as well give up...
O/T interesting poll of American students in the daily Axios summary:
76% of the 800 college students polled (margin of error: +/- 3.5 percentage points) say they will return to campus if they have the option. 66% say they would attend in-person classes. A striking majority say they're planning to forgo the fun on campus: 79% say they wouldn't attend parties, and 71% say they wouldn't be sports spectators.
This is intriguing as it does suggest the same sort of shift in attitudes that we're seeing as people consider whether to go to pubs, restaurants, etc. If students are up for education but wary of parties or sport, then the same focus on essentials and reluctance to take risks to have fun will probably be true of the wider population.
It's rather sad that it's come to this, but worth noting.
A lot of students are far more studious than we were in our day - the need to get a 1st or at worst a 2:1 to justify the expense means a lot of students focus far more on studying then we used to...
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
If you are Cummings and want a complete remaking of the levers of power what better prize than the end of the Union? Then you can remake England in thine own image.
Do we know what Dominic Cummings‘ attitude is towards the Union? He used to blog a lot didn’t he? And publish lots of odd bits and bobs. Is anyone aware if he has ever said anything for or against the Union?
The United Kingdom or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
King Cole, to be fair, we share a language with the Kiwis.
Britons tend not to refer to themselves as rosbif.
Indeed we don't. If the French refer to us that way it is derogatory (albeit it can be affectionately so).
Suspect we use Frog more than they use Rosbif. For example it creeps into posts on here. Even serious political posts that are not in any sense jocular or about rugby.
Most people don't know much about the way barristers work, so it likely makes little sense. Even if you understand the point, it's a bit of a wishy-washy one, and certainly not something that's worth repeating.
King Cole, to be fair, we share a language with the Kiwis.
Britons tend not to refer to themselves as rosbif.
Indeed we don't. If the French refer to us that way it is derogatory (albeit it can be affectionately so).
Suspect we use Frog more than they use Rosbif. For example it creeps into posts on here. Even serious political posts that are not in any sense jocular or about rugby.
And you don't think an equivalent French blog would have had anyone refer to les rosbif during any discussions they may have had in politics? Perhaps regarding Brexit and not the rugby? The term has been used in French newspapers and political cartoons too
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I don't thing mildly disparaging nicknames like Frog, Kraut or indeed Rosbif, Limey and Pom matter too much. We are fairly equal status rival nations. Nicknames based on more unequal historical status, of which there are plenty are not so acceptable, particularly when racially tinged.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a big problem. It just sounded a bit odd to me in the context of the post and the poster I was replying to.
I do perceive a difference between Kiwi and Frog though. Perhaps this is just me but if I met an NZ person I would feel OK to refer to them to their face as a Kiwi. I mean, I probably wouldn't, I'd be far more likely to use their name, or say "Oh so you're from New Zealand" but I can see myself saying "Oh, so you're a Kiwi" without feeling too awkward about it. But the equivalent situation with a FR person, there is NO WAY that I'd say "Ah, right, so you're a Frog then." I just would never do that.
I agree that New Zealanders are happy to refer to themselves as Kiwis. Frogs is mildly insulting, but in a way that could well be quite affectionate banter. In the right context it is fine.
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
It is a silver fern on the All Blacks Jersey as I recall.
And if Cummings is seen to have brought lockdown forward saving many lives I look forward to your posting that finding
Will that negate lockdown having to be eased in England three weeks early, as subterfuge for the story of Cummings' Durham trip getting into the public domain?
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
If you are Cummings and want a complete remaking of the levers of power what better prize than the end of the Union? Then you can remake England in thine own image.
Do we know what Dominic Cummings‘ attitude is towards the Union? He used to blog a lot didn’t he? And publish lots of odd bits and bobs. Is anyone aware if he has ever said anything for or against the Union?
The United Kingdom or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Studies of longer term consequences of Covid infection are beginning to emerge. This one is not particularly encouraging.
Pericarditis and myocarditis long after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cross-sectional descriptive study in health-care workers https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.12.20151316v1 ...We studied 139 health-care workers with confirmed past SARS-CoV-2 infection (103 diagnosed by RT-PCR and 36 by serology). Participants underwent clinical assessment, electrocardiography, laboratory tests including immune cell profiling and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Pericarditis was diagnosed when classical criteria were present, and the diagnosis of myocarditis was based on the updated CMR Lake-Louise-Criteria. Results: Median age was 52 years (IQR 41-57), 100 (72%) were women, and 23 (16%) were previously hospitalized for Covid-19 pneumonia. At examination (10.4 [9.3-11.0] weeks after infection-like symptoms), all participants presented hemodynamic stability. Chest pain, dyspnoea or palpitations were observed in 58 (42%) participants; electrocardiographic abnormalities in 69 (50%); NT-pro-BNP was elevated in 11 (8%); troponin in 1 (1%); and CMR abnormalities in 104 (75%). Isolated pericarditis was diagnosed in 4 (3%) participants, myopericarditis in 15 (11%) and isolated myocarditis in 36 (26%). Participants diagnosed by RT-PCR were more likely to still present symptoms than participants diagnosed by serology (73 [71%] vs 18 [50%]; p=0.027); nonetheless, the prevalence of pericarditis or myocarditis was high in both groups (44 [43%] vs 11 [31%]; p=0.238). Most participants (101 [73%]) showed altered immune cell counts in blood, particularly decreased eosinophil (37 [27%]; p<0.001) and increased CD4-CD8-/loT alpha beta-cell numbers (24 [17%]; p<0.001). Pericarditis was associated with elevated CD4-CD8-/loT alpha beta-cell numbers (p=0.011), while participants diagnosed with myopericarditis or myocarditis had lower (p<0.05) plasmacytoid dendritic cell, NK-cell and plasma cell counts and lower anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibody levels (p=0.027). Conclusions: Pericarditis and myocarditis with clinical stability are frequent long after SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in presently asymptomatic subjects. These observations will probably apply to the general population infected and may indicate that cardiac sequelae might occur late in association with an altered (delayed) innate and adaptative immune response...</i>
Mr. Divvie, sorry, I forgot that you knew precisely how often and what terms Englishmen use to deride others from different parts of the UK but that the reverse never ever happens and is indeed fictional.
"The English are mean and nationalist because they use these terms. How dare you suggest Scotsmen ever use derisive terms about the English? Typical Englishman..."
Which part of the world recently had a nationalist on the border hurling abuse at travellers from down the road?
Pretending the English are uniquely derisive or nationalistic is as unwittingly ironic as the name of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.
I'd say get a retired supreme court justice in for it but I understand they're all enemies of the people and the gov committed to reexamine the relationship with the courts, so an ex judge is probably a no go.
I'm sure a Revolutionary Communist Party member should be available.
Studies of longer term consequences of Covid infection are beginning to emerge. This one is not particularly encouraging.
Pericarditis and myocarditis long after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cross-sectional descriptive study in health-care workers https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.12.20151316v1 ...We studied 139 health-care workers with confirmed past SARS-CoV-2 infection (103 diagnosed by RT-PCR and 36 by serology). Participants underwent clinical assessment, electrocardiography, laboratory tests including immune cell profiling and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Pericarditis was diagnosed when classical criteria were present, and the diagnosis of myocarditis was based on the updated CMR Lake-Louise-Criteria. Results: Median age was 52 years (IQR 41-57), 100 (72%) were women, and 23 (16%) were previously hospitalized for Covid-19 pneumonia. At examination (10.4 [9.3-11.0] weeks after infection-like symptoms), all participants presented hemodynamic stability. Chest pain, dyspnoea or palpitations were observed in 58 (42%) participants; electrocardiographic abnormalities in 69 (50%); NT-pro-BNP was elevated in 11 (8%); troponin in 1 (1%); and CMR abnormalities in 104 (75%). Isolated pericarditis was diagnosed in 4 (3%) participants, myopericarditis in 15 (11%) and isolated myocarditis in 36 (26%). Participants diagnosed by RT-PCR were more likely to still present symptoms than participants diagnosed by serology (73 [71%] vs 18 [50%]; p=0.027); nonetheless, the prevalence of pericarditis or myocarditis was high in both groups (44 [43%] vs 11 [31%]; p=0.238). Most participants (101 [73%]) showed altered immune cell counts in blood, particularly decreased eosinophil (37 [27%]; p<0.001) and increased CD4-CD8-/loT alpha beta-cell numbers (24 [17%]; p<0.001). Pericarditis was associated with elevated CD4-CD8-/loT alpha beta-cell numbers (p=0.011), while participants diagnosed with myopericarditis or myocarditis had lower (p<0.05) plasmacytoid dendritic cell, NK-cell and plasma cell counts and lower anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibody levels (p=0.027). Conclusions: Pericarditis and myocarditis with clinical stability are frequent long after SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in presently asymptomatic subjects. These observations will probably apply to the general population infected and may indicate that cardiac sequelae might occur late in association with an altered (delayed) innate and adaptative immune response...</i>
Yes, our cardiology depth is seeing a fair amount of this. Some other odd vasculitic neurology, such as a colleague with intractable vertigo for example.
Mr. Divvie, sorry, I forgot that you knew precisely how often and what terms Englishmen use to deride others from different parts of the UK but that the reverse never ever happens and is indeed fictional.
"The English are mean and nationalist because they use these terms. How dare you suggest Scotsmen ever use derisive terms about the English? Typical Englishman..."
Which part of the world recently had a nationalist on the border hurling abuse at travellers from down the road?
Pretending the English are uniquely derisive or nationalistic is as unwittingly ironic as the name of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.
I'm not saying uniquely, just more. At least you've moved on from the dim assertion that sassenach is in any way common usage in Scotland.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
Frog and Kraut are just someone being offensive arses.
And while I have you - the vaccine - are you still confident on 1st half of next year for a mass UK rollout?
My money is on Harris, but other options (as Mike suggests) are entirely plausible.
As far as a vaccine is concerned, Charles is the expert. I am reasonably optimistic we'll have at least one workable vaccine before the year end, so large scale vaccination in the first half of next year (and localised vaccination programs this year) are a reasonable possibility. I wouldn't bet my life or business on that, though (though in effect, many of us are doing the latter).
King Cole, to be fair, we share a language with the Kiwis.
Britons tend not to refer to themselves as rosbif.
I often refer to myself as a Les Rosbif, usually when in the earshot of a French person.
Kinda ironic as I’ve never eaten beef.
Few sights are more cheering than the face of a glum Frenchman suddenly lightening up as you explain that you are not in fact anglais, but écossais.
My late mother once told me the story of how she and Dad were en route through France and their Saab went wonky. Normand village garagiste, plenty of the Gallic equvalent of tooth-sucking, too busy, what can one do, more shrugs, and then spots the Ecosse sticker on the back of the car - instant transformation, spanners out ...
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
My dad used to refer to the English as ‘Sassenachs’, in what was clearly meant to be a derogatory manner, but he was born in the 1920s and had a lot of old-fashioned ideas, clearly out of step with the modern world. I haven’t heard anyone else use the word in decades. Young Scots would think you a bit odd if you used it today.
King Cole, to be fair, we share a language with the Kiwis.
Britons tend not to refer to themselves as rosbif.
Indeed we don't. If the French refer to us that way it is derogatory (albeit it can be affectionately so).
Suspect we use Frog more than they use Rosbif. For example it creeps into posts on here. Even serious political posts that are not in any sense jocular or about rugby.
And you don't think an equivalent French blog would have had anyone refer to les rosbif during any discussions they may have had in politics? Perhaps regarding Brexit and not the rugby? The term has been used in French newspapers and political cartoons too
Less Rosbif than Frog is my sense. But back to you. Warming to my theme now but before I do to stress again it's no big deal.
Thing is, I have had many conversations with you and not once have you ever thrown in a "Frog". Or a "Kraut" for that matter. So it hit me in the eye when I saw it there - especially in a post that was otherwise very urbane and detached and was about the economy not something like rugby. Of course you were talking to Topping and not me and Topping used to be in the armed forces. Perhaps you were influenced subconsciously by that. Could that be it? Because it was odd.
"Professor Stephen Holgate FMedSci, a respiratory specialist from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, who chaired the report, said: “This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. The modelling suggests that deaths could be higher with a new wave of COVID-19 this winter, but the risk of this happening could be reduced if we take action immediately.”
“With relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us.”
An advisory group of 37 experts were rapidly assembled to create the report following a request by the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The report was guided by a patient and carer reference group that provided information and advice on the key issues for those who would be most affected by a bad winter."
It does seem odd for a government to commission a report of "nonsense".
I note the 120 000 second wave deaths has Confidence Intervals of 25 000-250 000, and is only hospital deaths, not community and nursing homes. It is based on an r value sticking at 1.7. The whole point is to forecast what happens without planning to mitigate.
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
My dad used to refer to the English as ‘Sassenachs’, in what was clearly meant to be a derogatory manner, but he was born in the 1920s and had a lot of old-fashioned ideas, clearly out of step with the modern world. I haven’t heard anyone else use the word in decades. Young Scots would think you a bit odd if you used it today.
(He was a Lowlander and strong Unionist.)
In any case, as you and my fellow Scots on PB know full well, but others may not, Sasunnach [edit@ the primary Gaelic form of the term] simply means Saxon in the context of non-Gaelic speaker, so Scots or English (Or both!) speaker, = Lowlander Scot. I think that has become more widely known in recent years, perhaps explaining the change of usage you mention.
'Southron' is a commoner term - but simply geographically descriptive and quite short.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on the candidates but she seems to have a CV that will attract some Trump voters if patriotism is played up (which it looks like it will with some of the attack ads from disaffected Republicans).
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
My dad used to refer to the English as ‘Sassenachs’, in what was clearly meant to be a derogatory manner, but he was born in the 1920s and had a lot of old-fashioned ideas, clearly out of step with the modern world. I haven’t heard anyone else use the word in decades. Young Scots would think you a bit odd if you used it today.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I don't thing mildly disparaging nicknames like Frog, Kraut or indeed Rosbif, Limey and Pom matter too much. We are fairly equal status rival nations. Nicknames based on more unequal historical status, of which there are plenty are not so acceptable, particularly when racially tinged.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a big problem. It just sounded a bit odd to me in the context of the post and the poster I was replying to.
I do perceive a difference between Kiwi and Frog though. Perhaps this is just me but if I met an NZ person I would feel OK to refer to them to their face as a Kiwi. I mean, I probably wouldn't, I'd be far more likely to use their name, or say "Oh so you're from New Zealand" but I can see myself saying "Oh, so you're a Kiwi" without feeling too awkward about it. But the equivalent situation with a FR person, there is NO WAY that I'd say "Ah, right, so you're a Frog then." I just would never do that.
I agree that New Zealanders are happy to refer to themselves as Kiwis. Frogs is mildly insulting, but in a way that could well be quite affectionate banter. In the right context it is fine.
Yes. Context is all. So talking about London's tourism economy -
"I'm worried. There's no way the Frogs and the Krauts are going to come until we get things properly open."
That's the thing about arguments. You get to make up your own, but not your opponents.
Mr. Dickson, I haven't heard 'jocks' used in real life at all, unless you count the Jocks and the Geordies (maybe versus? it was a long time ago) in The Dandy.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
I seem to recall a football match in Istanbul where the (I think, may be maligning) Liverpool supporters, much provoked (IIRC) by the locals, sang that 'They'd rather be a P.... than a Turk'.
But intertestingly, they'd rather not a be Cockney (which also scans).
They have some limits after all.
Slightly odd isn't it. There isn't a Cockney team, as such. West Ham are, or certainly were, too far East, Millwall the wrong side of the River, Arsenal and Spurs North London.
Tbh, 120k deaths as the median worst case scenario doesn't sound unlikely for a second wave. I think the masks and getting people used to the idea of local lockdowns are probably part of the defence against that. I'm very hopeful that we'll get a vaccine before the end of the year and if we do then we shouldn't see anything like that number of deaths.
A Wealth Tax is an exciting prospect. But will a Conservative government really do that? One for the 'believe it when I see it' basket.
Just like my argument on CGT on residential properties it does seem to be a very anti Conservative thing to do, so would be a bold move.
I also think a wealth tax would be difficult to implement.
There is a need to tap into wealth - of which there is oodles - if we are to maintain the sort of public realm we have become used to.
Your CGT on homes makes sense imo but it has next to no chance of happening because of the way we view home ownership here. There's a strong intellectual and moral case for it though.
Even Corbyn wasn't stupid enough to propose CGT on primary residences in his manifesto. If he had, Labour might have struggled to hold on to more than 150 seats...
I think we're all agreed it resides on the (quite long) list of things that arguably make sense but cannot be even floated because of public perceptions and sensitivities.
A Wealth Tax, OTOH, is perhaps yet another bit of "Corbyn lunacy" that the Tories will end up doing. Maybe UBI as well. And income tax rises on high earners? Oh and possibly even something around national broadband. We will see.
Perhaps it's better that they do it rather than Labour. Perhaps there will be less outrage. Less fear of what it signifies. Touch of the Nixons goes to Chinas.
It would be an error to give Labour the political cover for their own tax rises - let them be the party going into the next election promising wealth taxes and so on if they like. I'd be less concerned about UBI, as long as it's a replacement for the existing welfare system rather than another layer on top - it can be done in quite a Conservative-friendly way, in fact. That's the one I'd have Rishi go for, if anything.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
Frog and Kraut are just someone being offensive arses.
That's the thing about arguments. You get to make up your own, but not your opponents.
Mr. Dickson, I haven't heard 'jocks' used in real life at all, unless you count the Jocks and the Geordies (maybe versus? it was a long time ago) in The Dandy.
I have an old patient who calls himself "Jock". It is a nickname he has carried from army life.
Comments
Edit: No. Sorry I can't spot an odd one out in that list.
What exactly does Starmer want the government and BA to do? Let the airline go bust? Sack the staff completely without rehiring them? Get taxpayers to subsidise BA staff, many of whom earn a lot more than the median taxpayer, and incidentally thus subsidising CO2 emissions?
It really is the most stupid line of argument. If a company's revenues have fallen off a cliff, they have fallen off a cliff. There's no pain-free way to scrabble back up the cliff and keep the same number of staff on the same salaries.
https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1283361661265612800
https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1283362491519717376
https://twitter.com/SpillerOfTea/status/1283361695327543296
I do perceive a difference between Kiwi and Frog though. Perhaps this is just me but if I met an NZ person I would feel OK to refer to them to their face as a Kiwi. I mean, I probably wouldn't, I'd be far more likely to use their name, or say "Oh so you're from New Zealand" but I can see myself saying "Oh, so you're a Kiwi" without feeling too awkward about it. But the equivalent situation with a FR person, there is NO WAY that I'd say "Ah, right, so you're a Frog then." I just would never do that.
More seriously, it's not so much the unlikeliness that Birmingham would win the bid, just the supercilious sniff that they had the effrontery to even try.
And in a serious debate on the future of the health of the UK's denizens, too.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1283364223486234624
Now there are a lot of rational reasons for doing so but it could mean that unemployment rates for those aged 50+ could be sky high.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1283364830834032642
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Ironworks_and_Shipbuilding_Company
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
76% of the 800 college students polled (margin of error: +/- 3.5 percentage points) say they will return to campus if they have the option.
66% say they would attend in-person classes.
A striking majority say they're planning to forgo the fun on campus: 79% say they wouldn't attend parties, and 71% say they wouldn't be sports spectators.
This is intriguing as it does suggest the same sort of shift in attitudes that we're seeing as people consider whether to go to pubs, restaurants, etc. If students are up for education but wary of parties or sport, then the same focus on essentials and reluctance to take risks to have fun will probably be true of the wider population.
It's rather sad that it's come to this, but worth noting.
Britons tend not to refer to themselves as rosbif.
In this timeline, Labour were calling for a lockdown well before Cummings had what's described in the Times as his "Domoscene conversion.”
I've not seen anything that contradicts that timeline, but if you do have any Cummings quotes from before I'd be curious to see them.
https://twitter.com/AvatarDomy/status/1281676498345299969?s=20
That's the difference. If the French objected to the term "frogs" I would stop using it.
Though Southern Americans object to being called Yankees so maybe I need to think about that one.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
Suspect we use Frog more than they use Rosbif. For example it creeps into posts on here. Even serious political posts that are not in any sense jocular or about rugby.
Kinda ironic as I’ve never eaten beef.
Most people don't know much about the way barristers work, so it likely makes little sense. Even if you understand the point, it's a bit of a wishy-washy one, and certainly not something that's worth repeating.
Am I missing something?
Pericarditis and myocarditis long after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cross-sectional descriptive study in health-care workers
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.12.20151316v1
...We studied 139 health-care workers with confirmed past SARS-CoV-2 infection (103 diagnosed by RT-PCR and 36 by serology). Participants underwent clinical assessment, electrocardiography, laboratory tests including immune cell profiling and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Pericarditis was diagnosed when classical criteria were present, and the diagnosis of myocarditis was based on the updated CMR Lake-Louise-Criteria. Results: Median age was 52 years (IQR 41-57), 100 (72%) were women, and 23 (16%) were previously hospitalized for Covid-19 pneumonia. At examination (10.4 [9.3-11.0] weeks after infection-like symptoms), all participants presented hemodynamic stability. Chest pain, dyspnoea or palpitations were observed in 58 (42%) participants; electrocardiographic abnormalities in 69 (50%); NT-pro-BNP was elevated in 11 (8%); troponin in 1 (1%); and CMR abnormalities in 104 (75%). Isolated pericarditis was diagnosed in 4 (3%) participants, myopericarditis in 15 (11%) and isolated myocarditis in 36 (26%). Participants diagnosed by RT-PCR were more likely to still present symptoms than participants diagnosed by serology (73 [71%] vs 18 [50%]; p=0.027); nonetheless, the prevalence of pericarditis or myocarditis was high in both groups (44 [43%] vs 11 [31%]; p=0.238). Most participants (101 [73%]) showed altered immune cell counts in blood, particularly decreased eosinophil (37 [27%]; p<0.001) and increased CD4-CD8-/loT alpha beta-cell numbers (24 [17%]; p<0.001). Pericarditis was associated with elevated CD4-CD8-/loT alpha beta-cell numbers (p=0.011), while participants diagnosed with myopericarditis or myocarditis had lower (p<0.05) plasmacytoid dendritic cell, NK-cell and plasma cell counts and lower anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibody levels (p=0.027). Conclusions: Pericarditis and myocarditis with clinical stability are frequent long after SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in presently asymptomatic subjects. These observations will probably apply to the general population infected and may indicate that cardiac sequelae might occur late in association with an altered (delayed) innate and adaptative immune response...</i>
"The English are mean and nationalist because they use these terms. How dare you suggest Scotsmen ever use derisive terms about the English? Typical Englishman..."
Which part of the world recently had a nationalist on the border hurling abuse at travellers from down the road?
Pretending the English are uniquely derisive or nationalistic is as unwittingly ironic as the name of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.
Majority of voters say Biden's VP won't factor in 2020 vote
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/15/joe-biden-vice-president-pick-poll-362900
At least you've moved on from the dim assertion that sassenach is in any way common usage in Scotland.
And while I have you - the vaccine - are you still confident on 1st half of next year for a mass UK rollout?
As far as a vaccine is concerned, Charles is the expert.
I am reasonably optimistic we'll have at least one workable vaccine before the year end, so large scale vaccination in the first half of next year (and localised vaccination programs this year) are a reasonable possibility.
I wouldn't bet my life or business on that, though (though in effect, many of us are doing the latter).
(He was a Lowlander and strong Unionist.)
Thing is, I have had many conversations with you and not once have you ever thrown in a "Frog". Or a "Kraut" for that matter. So it hit me in the eye when I saw it there - especially in a post that was otherwise very urbane and detached and was about the economy not something like rugby. Of course you were talking to Topping and not me and Topping used to be in the armed forces. Perhaps you were influenced subconsciously by that. Could that be it? Because it was odd.
"Professor Stephen Holgate FMedSci, a respiratory specialist from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, who chaired the report, said: “This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. The modelling suggests that deaths could be higher with a new wave of COVID-19 this winter, but the risk of this happening could be reduced if we take action immediately.”
“With relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us.”
An advisory group of 37 experts were rapidly assembled to create the report following a request by the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The report was guided by a patient and carer reference group that provided information and advice on the key issues for those who would be most affected by a bad winter."
It does seem odd for a government to commission a report of "nonsense".
I note the 120 000 second wave deaths has Confidence Intervals of 25 000-250 000, and is only hospital deaths, not community and nursing homes. It is based on an r value sticking at 1.7. The whole point is to forecast what happens without planning to mitigate.
https://acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/prepare-now-for-a-winter-covid-19-peak-warns-academy-of-medical-sciences
'Southron' is a commoner term - but simply geographically descriptive and quite short.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on the candidates but she seems to have a CV that will attract some Trump voters if patriotism is played up (which it looks like it will with some of the attack ads from disaffected Republicans).
https://twitter.com/alexandrabulat/status/1283368918636167169
"I'm worried. There's no way the Frogs and the Krauts are going to come until we get things properly open."
This doesn't quite work for me.
But anyway.
That's the thing about arguments. You get to make up your own, but not your opponents.
Mr. Dickson, I haven't heard 'jocks' used in real life at all, unless you count the Jocks and the Geordies (maybe versus? it was a long time ago) in The Dandy.