If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I'm not a "Labour supporter".
I thought you've said you were a party member? Although frankly unless your party is the Tories or the SNP, most of the others are at a historic ebb in Parliament whichever way you you slice it.
I am a Labour party member. I'm also a member of PureGym but I'm not a supporter of them.
So, why are you a Labour member then?
Because that isn't quite the same as a gym membership is it
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I distinctly remember my wife's first essay question when she started her degree at Oxford* as a mature student: "Why be moral?" A good question, I thought.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
I have a friend who went to Brookes who calls it "Oxford No Books".
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
It's only a matter of time until the studios start renting out new movies for £20, for home viewing.
The old-fashioned multiplex has been killed off by the studios themselves, insisting on all of the revenue from new releases and forcing the cinemas to rely on concession revenue.
That, and a few years of mostly forgettable sequels rather than innovative movies, alongside customers who increasingly find it impossible to put down their phones for a couple of hours.
There will still be some markets left for cinemas, namely the annual massive blockbuster movie, the 'VIP' experience with good food and alcohol served, and the teenagers who don't care what's on as they're more interested in each other than the screen.
Those markets are not going to sustain a couple of dozen-screen multiplexes in every town in the country going forward, there will necessarily be closures and refurbishments required.
I think so.
I also think that there will be a market for pricey, top-line small cinemas. They are building one nearby - apparently already over-subscribed for membership (pre COVID). The plans show huge amounts of space per patron.... table service, full restaurant etc.
There's one opened near me, the only licensed cinema in town and with a named chef doing the menu. Four screens, 24 seats per screen, well spaced in pairs and tiered, with table service for food and drink, or a restaurant outside if you prefer to eat before the movie.
You think you're there on your own, but it's £30 a ticket and probably £30 more for dinner. The key market is middle aged couples on a date night getting away from their kids!
Well the employees certainly wont want to live in Darlo. They'll probably live in Northallerton. Or Newcastle.
The area around Durham cricket ground and indeed Durham itself always look nice to me. But I do wonder if it might make a secondment by some of the clever clogs in the City look less attractive.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I'm not a "Labour supporter".
I thought you've said you were a party member? Although frankly unless your party is the Tories or the SNP, most of the others are at a historic ebb in Parliament whichever way you you slice it.
I am a Labour party member. I'm also a member of PureGym but I'm not a supporter of them.
So, why are you a Labour member then?
Because that isn't quite the same as a gym membership is it
Because it cost like £1 to become a student member for a year and vote against RLB.
The reason why we have this catastrofuck with universities and the looming mass business extinction event with the end of the Furlough scheme and the go to the pub don't go to the pub contradiction is because they made no plans for how to manage the pox through the autumn as it was supposed to have gone away by now.
Education is devolved. In Wales, Labour are in charge (or technically Labour + LibDems). In Scotland, the SNP are in charge.
How did the Labour+LibDem and the SNP policies with regard to return to the Universities differ from the English ones ?
Err ... they appear to be indistinguishable in their catastro-fuckedness.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
The 2010 and 2017 elections produced Hung Parliaments and were not won by one party. The Tories only obtained office courtesy of smaller parties which had the option of swinging the other way. Thus, the the Tories have not won 2 general elections consecutively - having achieved a small majority in 2015 which the party proceeded to lose in 2017.
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I distinctly remember my wife's first essay question when she started her degree at Oxford* as a mature student: "Why be moral?" A good question, I thought.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I'm not a "Labour supporter".
I thought you've said you were a party member? Although frankly unless your party is the Tories or the SNP, most of the others are at a historic ebb in Parliament whichever way you you slice it.
I am a Labour party member. I'm also a member of PureGym but I'm not a supporter of them.
Except that PureGym is not a political organization, but one that you join for its practical utility. What practical utility does Labour membership have if you're not a supporter?
If even the party members don't actually support the party, that may go some way to explaining their recent difficulties...
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I'm not a "Labour supporter".
I thought you've said you were a party member? Although frankly unless your party is the Tories or the SNP, most of the others are at a historic ebb in Parliament whichever way you you slice it.
I am a Labour party member. I'm also a member of PureGym but I'm not a supporter of them.
So, why are you a Labour member then?
Because that isn't quite the same as a gym membership is it
Because it cost like £1 to become a student member for a year and vote against RLB.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
. The recent charts apparently projecting exponential growth in the presence of both a clear linear trend and the evidence of at least 2 other western European countries did nothing for credibility (I know, I know, it wasn't a forecast but really).
But, for small x, an exponential is linear.
$\exp(nx) \approx 1 + nx$
The problem is that you only find out whether you are on an exponential curve when it is too late.
Sure, but we had a period of growth over late July, all of August and most of September at that time. And it was linear. We also had Spain and France who had started growth a month or so before us and were on the same track.
And its not like linear growth is not alarming and a need for action, it is and it was. They basically handed out a stick to sceptics (who are mainly ridiculous) and said, "here, beat us with this within 2 weeks and undermine our message".
The trouble with exponentials is that, by the time you notice that they are exponentials, it’s too late.
If you tried to model the data with errors over September, you may well conclude that an exponential is as good as or is a better fit than a straight line.
(Now maybe you should also include the August data, as you suggest, but it is quite arguable that you should not, that the circumstances of the underlying pandemic were changing).
Well their charts are being mocked already and they will be increasingly so as time goes on. It really doesn't help sell their policies.
Well the employees certainly wont want to live in Darlo. They'll probably live in Northallerton. Or Newcastle.
The area around Durham cricket ground and indeed Durham itself always look nice to me. But I do wonder if it might make a secondment by some of the clever clogs in the City look less attractive.
Durham is nice, of course. Full of mackems though.
To be fair, not exactly uncommon...just this week Sadiq Khan was photographed having a fake flu jab and have a look at most footballer signing their contracts, it is pretty much always staged.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I distinctly remember my wife's first essay question when she started her degree at Oxford* as a mature student: "Why be moral?" A good question, I thought.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
Finest university in Oxford.
Apparently there are other colleges available in Oxford for those who can't get into Brookes.
"Investors are nonetheless taking it [Trump refusing to leave if he loses] seriously enough; near record derivative contracts have been purchased to hedge against the extreme volatility that would accompany a long and bitterly contested transition."
For a lot of the tw@tterati that go on about the crazies who believe conspiracy theory nonsense like QAnon, a lot of them seem to really be going down the rabbit hole of Trump hospital conspiracy theories.
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I distinctly remember my wife's first essay question when she started her degree at Oxford* as a mature student: "Why be moral?" A good question, I thought.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
I have a friend who went to Brookes who calls it "Oxford No Books".
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
Won't a lot of business have decamped to Tesco online? We know they have added deliveries and recruited new drivers.
The Tesco share price is down since covid-19 but not so much as more discretionary spend industries. i think sales are overall fine (includes online) but extra costs for covid-19 and staff to police them means margins not the same. Tesco will survive but the likes of cineworld , waterstones,pubs etc will not unless we ditch the useless mask and 10pm curfew policy
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
There is only so long that people will tolerate ordering items that do not turn up.
It's comically inept. The big supermarkets have been doing home delivery for about two decades now, but you still have the situation where they have your order for several days, they know you want those items, but they aren't able to deliver them to you, because you only receive them if they're in stock on the shop floor at the precise time they manually pick your order.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
The 2010 and 2017 elections produced Hung Parliaments and were not won by one party. The Tories only obtained office courtesy of smaller parties which had the option of swinging the other way. Thus, the the Tories have not won 2 general elections consecutively - having achieved a small majority in 2015 which the party proceeded to lose in 2017.
If you get to form a government you won
No matter how little the margin was
Not at all - the margin was not relevant. The Tories formed a Government in 2010 courtesy of a decision taken by the Libdems. In 2017 the DUP decided to keep them in office. There was nothing inevitable about either decision in that the LDs and DUP could have opted to put Labour in office. Had Starmer been Leader in 2017, the DUP might well have chosen to do that.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
Like I said - I don't identify as a "Labour supporter". I would prefer Starmer to be PM rather than Boris, however I'm not entirely convinced by the talent in the rest of the party.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
Morning all. Interesting header. Food for thought for sure. My view is Trump can only win as the incumbent if he stops being Trump and this has always been true. He was heading for defeat until Covid hit America and gave him a shot at salvation and a second term. The requirement was that in a national crisis he appeared empathetic, serious, competent. Not to actually be those things – obviously not possible – but to look the part. Look like a president.
I was scared he might be able to do it. Donald Trump is after all a showman. But either because he couldn’t or he wouldn’t he passed up the opportunity and instead dished up more of the same and dug himself into a hole whereby defeat at the polls became a near certainty. Excellent news. Still Toast. More Toast than ever in fact. But wait! …
Here comes that virus again to grant him a second (and final) chance to unplug the toaster before he pops up all brown and crisp. He has come down with it himself and assuming it remains a mild case he can milk the situation for drama and sympathy and (very importantly) use it to alter his tone and positioning for the election. He can do what I'm saying is the sine qua non for him to have a chance on 3/11 - stop being Trump. I’m hoping he again fails to do this, or if he does that it’s a case of ‘Keegan Brooking’.
'Keegan Brooking' ??
Sorry - "too little too late".
The famous 1982 WC double substitution with England in a hole and just a few minutes left.
Ah yes, I see.
You know that phenomenum where you supress really terrible memories?...
Thanks 😬
- It was, apart from the Thatcher landslides, the grimmest moment of the 1980s.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
Got an email thanking me for subscribing to the Atlantic. Its rather good:
"In the spring of 1857, a group of Boston transcendentalists gathered for dinner at the Parker House Hotel. After five hours of repartee, they decided to create a new magazine, one that would make politics, literature, and the arts its chief concerns.
They were united in three ways: their opposition to slavery, their love of American writing, and their tripartite names—including Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and James Russell Lowell. Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, was invited, but she boycotted the dinner when she learned that alcohol would be served.
After everyone agreed on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s proposed name, a plan for The Atlantic was set. The founders wanted to be “fearless and outspoken” at the dawn of “a new era of human civilization.” In a manifesto, they promised to be “the organ of no party or clique”; to “honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea”; and to care for the “whole domain of aesthetics.” The manifesto was signed by, among others, Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and yes, "Mrs. H. Beecher Stowe."
In November of 1857, the first issue was published, and we have never stopped publishing. Since its founding, The Atlantic has published everyone from the aforementioned Hawthorne (who served as the magazine's Civil War correspondent) to Frederick Douglass and Walt Whitman; from Robert Frost and Helen Keller to W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington; from Emily Dickinson and Virginia Woolf to Mark Twain and Sylvia Plath; from a raft of future presidents—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and JFK—to the great writers of the present, too many to even begin mentioning.
We know that the America of today would be unrecognizable to the founders of this magazine, but my hope is that they would take quickly to today's Atlantic. They would recognize in our journalism the stringent application of intelligence and analytic rigor to the great problems of the day; the devotion to the explication of not only the American idea, but also the nature of an unsettled world; and a great love of literature and culture in all of its manifestations.
I believe that the founders would be able to locate these values in our print magazine, on our website, at our events, in our podcasts, and in our documentaries. (I also believe that they would be confused by our Instagram account.)"
I love the Atlantic because whatever its ups and downs (financial or editorial), it has never ceased to value writing talent.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Well I suppose it moves it from the conspiracy that the room not being at the medical centre....
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Yes, the reflection is original, and in the right place, if there was no folder.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Well I suppose it moves it from the conspiracy that the room not being at the medical centre....
There's nothing wrong with questioning something, and then accepting clear evidence to the contrary.
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I distinctly remember my wife's first essay question when she started her degree at Oxford* as a mature student: "Why be moral?" A good question, I thought.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
Finest university in Oxford.
The other lot were foolish in establishing a university so close to a major car factory. Big mistake.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Yes, the reflection is original, and in the right place, if there was no folder.
Why go to the bother? Pasting in both a folder and the reflection of a folder?
Got an email thanking me for subscribing to the Atlantic. Its rather good:
"In the spring of 1857, a group of Boston transcendentalists gathered for dinner at the Parker House Hotel. After five hours of repartee, they decided to create a new magazine, one that would make politics, literature, and the arts its chief concerns.
They were united in three ways: their opposition to slavery, their love of American writing, and their tripartite names—including Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and James Russell Lowell. Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, was invited, but she boycotted the dinner when she learned that alcohol would be served.
After everyone agreed on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s proposed name, a plan for The Atlantic was set. The founders wanted to be “fearless and outspoken” at the dawn of “a new era of human civilization.” In a manifesto, they promised to be “the organ of no party or clique”; to “honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea”; and to care for the “whole domain of aesthetics.” The manifesto was signed by, among others, Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and yes, "Mrs. H. Beecher Stowe."
In November of 1857, the first issue was published, and we have never stopped publishing. Since its founding, The Atlantic has published everyone from the aforementioned Hawthorne (who served as the magazine's Civil War correspondent) to Frederick Douglass and Walt Whitman; from Robert Frost and Helen Keller to W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington; from Emily Dickinson and Virginia Woolf to Mark Twain and Sylvia Plath; from a raft of future presidents—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and JFK—to the great writers of the present, too many to even begin mentioning.
We know that the America of today would be unrecognizable to the founders of this magazine, but my hope is that they would take quickly to today's Atlantic. They would recognize in our journalism the stringent application of intelligence and analytic rigor to the great problems of the day; the devotion to the explication of not only the American idea, but also the nature of an unsettled world; and a great love of literature and culture in all of its manifestations.
I believe that the founders would be able to locate these values in our print magazine, on our website, at our events, in our podcasts, and in our documentaries. (I also believe that they would be confused by our Instagram account.)"
I love the Atlantic because whatever its ups and downs (financial or editorial), it has never ceased to value writing talent.
Yes, I have taken a subscription too. Good value, and well written.
Well the employees certainly wont want to live in Darlo. They'll probably live in Northallerton. Or Newcastle.
The area around Durham cricket ground and indeed Durham itself always look nice to me. But I do wonder if it might make a secondment by some of the clever clogs in the City look less attractive.
Most of County Durham is nice. Lovely hilly countryside all around, beaches, cheap. Poor housing and infrastructure, run down facilities are the only issues. And a dreadful reputation as a pit area. Which hasn't been true for 30 years plus. Put some civil servants there and those other problems won't last that long.
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I think that your enlightened self interest answers are actually more compelling and more likely to keep most on the straight and narrow.
When I was a callow 24 year old a family friend, similar age to my self, ended up in prison, I helped him get representation, and I was the only person he'd allow to visit him.
Even as a visitor the security checks performed by the prison officers were pretty appalling. I made a vow that I never ever wanted to see a prison ever again.
For the first month he was at a Category A prison where the officers treat visitors as scum, it really was harrowing, so I can't imagine what it was like for the prisoners.
I learned the hard way that people who smuggle drugs and other items into prison use the smell of spices to hide it which the dogs were trained to detect.
When I used to visit him, I used to visit his parents beforehand, and they used a lot of spices to cook, and yours truly carried some of that smell into prison.....
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Well I suppose it moves it from the conspiracy that the room not being at the medical centre....
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
Like I said - I don't identify as a "Labour supporter". I would prefer Starmer to be PM rather than Boris, however I'm not entirely convinced by the talent in the rest of the party.
If you don't identify as a Labour supporter then I believe you broke Labour rules as aren't you supposed to declare you are a supporter as part of the membership sign up process?
Did you join under false pretences?
If Starmer has any talent why doesn't he oppose Boris? Why doesn't he give any of his ideas to his Labour colleagues in Wales who answer to him?
Are you suggesting Starmer is such a poor leader he can't communicate with those under he is leading?
Got an email thanking me for subscribing to the Atlantic. Its rather good:
"In the spring of 1857, a group of Boston transcendentalists gathered for dinner at the Parker House Hotel. After five hours of repartee, they decided to create a new magazine, one that would make politics, literature, and the arts its chief concerns.
They were united in three ways: their opposition to slavery, their love of American writing, and their tripartite names—including Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and James Russell Lowell. Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, was invited, but she boycotted the dinner when she learned that alcohol would be served.
After everyone agreed on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s proposed name, a plan for The Atlantic was set. The founders wanted to be “fearless and outspoken” at the dawn of “a new era of human civilization.” In a manifesto, they promised to be “the organ of no party or clique”; to “honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea”; and to care for the “whole domain of aesthetics.” The manifesto was signed by, among others, Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and yes, "Mrs. H. Beecher Stowe."
In November of 1857, the first issue was published, and we have never stopped publishing. Since its founding, The Atlantic has published everyone from the aforementioned Hawthorne (who served as the magazine's Civil War correspondent) to Frederick Douglass and Walt Whitman; from Robert Frost and Helen Keller to W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington; from Emily Dickinson and Virginia Woolf to Mark Twain and Sylvia Plath; from a raft of future presidents—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and JFK—to the great writers of the present, too many to even begin mentioning.
We know that the America of today would be unrecognizable to the founders of this magazine, but my hope is that they would take quickly to today's Atlantic. They would recognize in our journalism the stringent application of intelligence and analytic rigor to the great problems of the day; the devotion to the explication of not only the American idea, but also the nature of an unsettled world; and a great love of literature and culture in all of its manifestations.
I believe that the founders would be able to locate these values in our print magazine, on our website, at our events, in our podcasts, and in our documentaries. (I also believe that they would be confused by our Instagram account.)"
I love the Atlantic because whatever its ups and downs (financial or editorial), it has never ceased to value writing talent.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Well I suppose it moves it from the conspiracy that the room not being at the medical centre....
There's nothing wrong with questioning something, and then accepting clear evidence to the contrary.
Some of the twatterati went right down the rabbit hole, pulling up shot after shot of various rooms in White House, trying to claim that cabinet has similar knobs as the one in the video, the flags are the same as in a particular room. etc etc etc.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
Like I said - I don't identify as a "Labour supporter". I would prefer Starmer to be PM rather than Boris, however I'm not entirely convinced by the talent in the rest of the party.
If you don't identify as a Labour supporter then I believe you broke Labour rules as aren't you supposed to declare you are a supporter as part of the membership sign up process?
Did you join under false pretences?
If Starmer has any talent why doesn't he oppose Boris? Why doesn't he give any of his ideas to his Labour colleagues in Wales who answer to him?
Are you suggesting Starmer is such a poor leader he can't communicate with those under he is leading?
Like I said, you're blaming someone else for the government's own incompetence, which is ridiculous. You look ridiculous.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Yes, the reflection is original, and in the right place, if there was no folder.
Why go to the bother? Pasting in both a folder and the reflection of a folder?
Because they had the time, the photo having been taken some time earlier than claimed?
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
That's a crap analogy. The government team is the only one allowed to kick the ball in this game. Incredibly, they only seem to be able to score own-goals.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Well I suppose it moves it from the conspiracy that the room not being at the medical centre....
Both can be true...
Honestly I think it is more Occam's Razor applies. They did the video, he coughed a couple of times, so they decided to edit out the coughing. And they staged a photo to make it look like he is busy working, just like they stage the footballer signing for their new club and Sadiq Khan did with his flu jab...also if he really had important documents to sign, it would be very foolish to show them on camera...it doesn't mean like the footballer does actually sign a contract that we can't see for obvious reasons, that he isn't actually doing any work / is incapacitated etc.
My take is he probably was quite ill at one point e.g. low oxygen sats, and that are trying to smooth that bit over.
My other wonder is the accuracy of the rapid testing they use at the White house has been questioned. I wonder if he or somebody close to him tested positive earlier in the week, they redid it, it tested negative and they decided to bluster forward. I thought it was very telling that the doctor said he wouldn't talk about historical test results and that confirmed positive by PCR on Thursday evening.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
That's a crap analogy. The government team is the only one allowed to kick the ball in this game. Incredibly, they only seem to be able to score own-goals.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
That's a crap analogy. The government team is the only one allowed to kick the ball in this game. Incredibly, they only seem to be able to score own-goals.
But, yet again, Labour are in government!
How much control, if any, does Starmer have over the Welsh Government?
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
Considering Labour are implementing the same policies as the Tories what makes you think the Tories are uniquely incompetent?
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
Considering Labour are implementing the same policies as the Tories what makes you think the Tories are uniquely incompetent?
I don't care what "Labour" are doing. It makes no difference.
I care what the Government is doing, as they are the only people who have any power in all of this.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
Considering Labour are implementing the same policies as the Tories what makes you think the Tories are uniquely incompetent?
I don't care what "Labour" are doing. It makes no difference.
I care what the Government is doing, as they are the only people who have any power in all of this.
Stop gaslighting for god sake.
I'm not gaslighting. Health is a devolved matter. Labour are in government. So what is going wrong in England but right where Labour is in government?
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
Considering Labour are implementing the same policies as the Tories what makes you think the Tories are uniquely incompetent?
Implementing stuff you don’t believe in reduces the chance of competence?
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
Considering Labour are implementing the same policies as the Tories what makes you think the Tories are uniquely incompetent?
I don't care what "Labour" are doing. It makes no difference.
I care what the Government is doing, as they are the only people who have any power in all of this.
Stop gaslighting for god sake.
I'm not gaslighting. Health is a devolved matter. Labour are in government. So what is going wrong in England but right where Labour is in government?
We're not talking about Wales. Or Labour. We're talking about the UK government. You know, your party, who has a 80 seat majority and thus total power?
You are gaslighting. You're blaming the opposition for your own failings.
Am I being dense? I can't see what's wrong with that reflection.
How is Trumps wrist reflected there?
Above the folder (which is also reflected of course). It's at the same level as his index finger knuckle on the right hand... and both reflections are at the same level on the table.
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Yes, the reflection is original, and in the right place, if there was no folder.
Why go to the bother? Pasting in both a folder and the reflection of a folder?
Because they had the time, the photo having been taken some time earlier than claimed?
This is bizarre. The reflection should match the original. Thereflection shows fleshy blob juxtaposed with corner of folder, the original doesn't. Photoshop.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Yeah right that Labour is not your party.
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
I have zero interest in the Labour government in Wales, as it has no impact on my life whatsoever.
It's your party that you are a member of being in government. If your party has any ideas they could put them in practice and show up the PM and show off how it's done.
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
It's better to be unoriginal than incompetent.
So how is Labour in government more competent?
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
I edited my post. But regardless, I don't care about "Labour". I am criticising the Government. You are also criticising the Government, but blaming somebody else, for laughable partisan reasons.
Well it's like a football match but the government players are the only one to be on the field. The opposition players are on the sidelines saying the government players are shit but refusing to take to the field or do any tackles.
You look ridiculous.
More ridiculous than a party that is both in government and opposition simultaneously yet is neither governing nor opposing?
You keep trying to blame someone else for your own party's incompetence. There's no other way around it, it's simply juvenile.
Considering Labour are implementing the same policies as the Tories what makes you think the Tories are uniquely incompetent?
I don't care what "Labour" are doing. It makes no difference.
I care what the Government is doing, as they are the only people who have any power in all of this.
Stop gaslighting for god sake.
I'm not gaslighting. Health is a devolved matter. Labour are in government. So what is going wrong in England but right where Labour is in government?
It is a poor defence, if the best you can do is all the leaders of the devolved nations are as bad as Johnson.
I can't be arsed to look, but I believe pandemic handling satisfaction polling ratings are on the whole better in the devolved countries than specifically for Johnson.
P.S. Don't bother to find evidence to correct me. I will take your word for it.
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
Won't a lot of business have decamped to Tesco online? We know they have added deliveries and recruited new drivers.
The Tesco share price is down since covid-19 but not so much as more discretionary spend industries. i think sales are overall fine (includes online) but extra costs for covid-19 and staff to police them means margins not the same. Tesco will survive but the likes of cineworld , waterstones,pubs etc will not unless we ditch the useless mask and 10pm curfew policy
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
There is only so long that people will tolerate ordering items that do not turn up.
It's comically inept. The big supermarkets have been doing home delivery for about two decades now, but you still have the situation where they have your order for several days, they know you want those items, but they aren't able to deliver them to you, because you only receive them if they're in stock on the shop floor at the precise time they manually pick your order.
What we do is book a slot with any old crap in our basket then decide what we actually want a day or two before the delivery.
However, the system used by the likes of Riverford and Abel & Cole is much better - a regular weekly delivery unless you cancel, no need to book a slot every time.
Must say as a neutral I’m enjoying Everton’s start to the season - hope they can keep it up. I thought James Rodriguez had rolled in for a comfortable retirement package, but it seems not.
On topic, I completely agree that we could be wrong. There's a non-negligible chance that Trump will pull off a suprise. Maybe it's 20%, maybe it's 30% - but against the odds wins do happen.
In betting terms, however, what if we're right and ignored the totally obvious in our betting decisions, by leaving a lot of money on the table when it was basically evens on either outcome.
It seems quite possible that most people made up their mind about Trump in 2017, the rest did so in June-ish this year, and everything else has been meaningless noise.
There's a lot of evidence for this that has been staring us in the face. Trump's approval rating bounces about a bit, and it's par for the course that sitting Presidents have a modest recovery in the last six months as their campaign ramps up. But essentially a fair few more people dislike him than like him, and it's been very stable in historical terms. We had a clear sign things weren't going well with a bad GOP (9% margin) defeat in the midterms, but there was no meaningful change of tack to win significant numbers around. And this has actually been an incredibly stable race in polling terms. It is very possible the result is around 53/46 to Biden, that nothing weird happens, and that this gives him a reasonable Electoral College win not dependent on a row about postal votes in Arizona or wherever.
If that happens - the boring, kind of predictable outcome based on the statistical evidence we all had - won't we wonder why we didn't fill our boots in that very long period when everyone said "it's a toss-up"? That we should have gone with head rather than gut? I know I will.
Lots of moaning about the government again this morning. I am not their greatest fan either but, let's get real for a moment.
We are facing a pandemic that is pretty much unprecedented in modern times. They are getting (poor) scientific advice that it will grow exponentially unless they take steps to inhibit it. So they have to make really hard choices: do you keep kids at school? Yes, having the schools shut was a disaster as was the exam cock up that followed.
Do we allow young people to go to University and have a life? Yes for the same reasons as one. Plus morally it would be wrong to destroy their lives for a virus that they are for all practical purposes immune from.
Do we need construction, public transport, retail to operate? Yes, we simply cannot go on not earning any cash.
Do we allow pubs, restaurants, cafes, cinemas, theatres to open (and by the way our computations show we are now likely to be exceeding R1 in at least some of the country)? Err...yes but we must reduce the risk as much as we can.
This is where we are and unfortunately its not really working. The rate of infection continues to increase (in a linear fashion but steady enough). So we end up bearing down on the last sector where infections are rising fastest.
What can we do about this? Well if track and trace worked better that would clearly help. The government got very, very bad advice about the importance of the accuracy of individual results early in the pandemic so our track and trace is entirely the wrong model at the moment, very accurate but slow testing with the results all too often too late as the infectious period has ended. The government is trying to fix this with faster tests but so, so late.
If we focused on actual superspreader events we could do a lot to reduce R. Personally, I think that this (which requires a different kind of track and trace) is the absolute key to so many of the difficult choices the government faces.
Do we subsidise the event industry, the entertainment industry, the food and drink sector, professional sport, until this goes away? I think that's really difficult. The "we" in this are current and future taxpayers. The subsidies in the first round were exceptionally generous but not sustainable over another 6 months. The government has cut back its support to a more sustainable level. Is this unfair? Yes. Are there any simple solutions? Not really.
I am not pretending Boris is the man for this. I think Hunt would have proved a better choice if we had known this was coming down the track but jeez, this is hard. Really, really hard and keyboard warriors should try to recognise the difficulties as well as the perceived incompetence.
All interesting points but I would add four points:-
1. Hospitality has been responsible for somewhere between 3 - 5% of the increase in cases. Why are they being picked on? What’s the evidence for a curfew? 2. Other countries are supporting their businesses for much longer than the U.K. Is there something we should be learning from them? 3. The cost of unemployment, welfare and lost tax revenue (let alone other costs) will dwarf the cost of further support. That needs taking into account when talking about “affordability”. 4. Loans could be converted into grants allowing those businesses which do not have a future to close and set up new businesses.
None of this is easy. But it seems to me that the government has just given up, has come up with a narrow definition of “viability” and is simply prepared to accept mass unemployment.
Comments
Because that isn't quite the same as a gym membership is it
You think you're there on your own, but it's £30 a ticket and probably £30 more for dinner. The key market is middle aged couples on a date night getting away from their kids!
How did the Labour+LibDem and the SNP policies with regard to return to the Universities differ from the English ones ?
Err ... they appear to be indistinguishable in their catastro-fuckedness.
No matter how little the margin was
If even the party members don't actually support the party, that may go some way to explaining their recent difficulties...
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1312662122627764225?s=19
Labour are in government too. Did you forget about that? They seem to have forgotten it too.
Telegraph
His hand is the far side of the folder and wouldn’t be reflected there
Instead all we get is a vacuum. Labour are incapable of doing anything original in power and incapable of opposing the government either. Great job!
I can't see Foldergate running very far tbh.
Considering the restrictions you dislike not only weren't opposed by Labour, they have been implemented by Labour too.
Poor housing and infrastructure, run down facilities are the only issues. And a dreadful reputation as a pit area. Which hasn't been true for 30 years plus.
Put some civil servants there and those other problems won't last that long.
Even as a visitor the security checks performed by the prison officers were pretty appalling. I made a vow that I never ever wanted to see a prison ever again.
For the first month he was at a Category A prison where the officers treat visitors as scum, it really was harrowing, so I can't imagine what it was like for the prisoners.
I learned the hard way that people who smuggle drugs and other items into prison use the smell of spices to hide it which the dogs were trained to detect.
When I used to visit him, I used to visit his parents beforehand, and they used a lot of spices to cook, and yours truly carried some of that smell into prison.....
Did you join under false pretences?
If Starmer has any talent why doesn't he oppose Boris? Why doesn't he give any of his ideas to his Labour colleagues in Wales who answer to him?
Are you suggesting Starmer is such a poor leader he can't communicate with those under he is leading?
My take is he probably was quite ill at one point e.g. low oxygen sats, and that are trying to smooth that bit over.
My other wonder is the accuracy of the rapid testing they use at the White house has been questioned. I wonder if he or somebody close to him tested positive earlier in the week, they redid it, it tested negative and they decided to bluster forward. I thought it was very telling that the doctor said he wouldn't talk about historical test results and that confirmed positive by PCR on Thursday evening.
Probably Labour's fault if Priti's "floating wall in the channel" doesn't work out.
I care what the Government is doing, as they are the only people who have any power in all of this.
Stop gaslighting for god sake.
Or perhaps Barnard Castle?
How time flies.
You are gaslighting. You're blaming the opposition for your own failings.
West Ham have done the same to us this week.
I can't be arsed to look, but I believe pandemic handling satisfaction polling ratings are on the whole better in the devolved countries than specifically for Johnson.
P.S. Don't bother to find evidence to correct me. I will take your word for it.
However, the system used by the likes of Riverford and Abel & Cole is much better - a regular weekly delivery unless you cancel, no need to book a slot every time.
We're still having fun in Barnes.
say they export to the EU, which probably includes us until Christmas. Thank God we voted to put a stop to that sort of nonsense.
Rodgers and Benitez the two best Liverpool managers this century before Klopp.
The blank paper is hilarious enough without misunder standong how reflections work.
NEW THREAD
In betting terms, however, what if we're right and ignored the totally obvious in our betting decisions, by leaving a lot of money on the table when it was basically evens on either outcome.
It seems quite possible that most people made up their mind about Trump in 2017, the rest did so in June-ish this year, and everything else has been meaningless noise.
There's a lot of evidence for this that has been staring us in the face. Trump's approval rating bounces about a bit, and it's par for the course that sitting Presidents have a modest recovery in the last six months as their campaign ramps up. But essentially a fair few more people dislike him than like him, and it's been very stable in historical terms. We had a clear sign things weren't going well with a bad GOP (9% margin) defeat in the midterms, but there was no meaningful change of tack to win significant numbers around. And this has actually been an incredibly stable race in polling terms. It is very possible the result is around 53/46 to Biden, that nothing weird happens, and that this gives him a reasonable Electoral College win not dependent on a row about postal votes in Arizona or wherever.
If that happens - the boring, kind of predictable outcome based on the statistical evidence we all had - won't we wonder why we didn't fill our boots in that very long period when everyone said "it's a toss-up"? That we should have gone with head rather than gut? I know I will.
1. Hospitality has been responsible for somewhere between 3 - 5% of the increase in cases. Why are they being picked on? What’s the evidence for a curfew?
2. Other countries are supporting their businesses for much longer than the U.K. Is there something we should be learning from them?
3. The cost of unemployment, welfare and lost tax revenue (let alone other costs) will dwarf the cost of further support. That needs taking into account when talking about “affordability”.
4. Loans could be converted into grants allowing those businesses which do not have a future to close and set up new businesses.
None of this is easy. But it seems to me that the government has just given up, has come up with a narrow definition of “viability” and is simply prepared to accept mass unemployment.