Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

That Was The Week That Was – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    Another Richard

    Possibly herd immunity here due to our young population?
  • RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    Quarterly growth was negative in 2010Q4, 2011Q4, 2012Q2, 2012Q4. And zero in 2012Q1.
    By our definition (and possibly a universal one?) that is NOT recession. You need 2 quarters in a row, as I understand it.

    You're right that the quote "deeper" implies "already was". The paragraph is problematic.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Pedant note on Emperors: Byzantine Boris sounds great but the basilaic Borises are Bulgarian Borises not Byzantine Borises.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Has anyone posted that workplace bullying is fine yet? Tough jobs demand tough characters and all that.

    Nope. We are a bunch of wimps. But kudos for sticking your head above the parapet.

    Now that you have done so can I (somewhat pathetically) agree? Bullying junior staff is morally disgusting and repulsive and bullying. Having a stand up row with senior officials who are impeding the Home Secretary's policies is not. I am genuinely not clear what category this falls into.
    That's broadly my view.

    And I'm reminded of another saying:

    Someone who is nice to you but not the waiter is not a nice person.
    Ha, was that at Goldman Sachs by any chance?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Luckyguy1983

    There are three American State Capitals with populations under 20,000, and one with a population over 1,000,000.

    Can you name either the states, or the capitals themselves?

    Lowest:

    Vermont (Montpellier), Maine (Augusta), South Dakota (Pierre)

    Highest:

    Arizona (Phoenix)

    Awesome!! Thanks.
    You can also go with American license plate slogans.

    Name the following states:

    The Empire State
    The Garden State
    Wild & Wonderful (yes, really)
    The Peach State

    Three points to the first PBer to get all four
    New York
    New Jersey
    West Virginia
    Georgia.
    Three points, congratulations.
    Ok.

    Which is the beaver state, and which is the badger?
    The former is Bill Clinton on seeing an intern.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    edited November 2020
    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
  • RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    It was, with the famous 'double dip', but then wasn't again:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-23090725
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

  • Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    UK GDP growth was:

    2010q3 0.7
    2010q4 0.0
    2011q1 0.4
    2011q2 0.1
    2011q3 0.3
    2011q4 0.1
    2012q1 0.7
    2012q2 -0.1
    2012q3 1.2
    2012q4 -0.2
    2013q1 0.5
    2013q2 0.8

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/pn2

    Its arguable that the coalition government had the wrong economic strategy but there was certainly no 'fall into deeper recession'.

    Now whatever the rights or wrongs of the coalition economic strategy do you think Obama looked up the actual data or did he really on hazy memory and political prejudices ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    No, some false statements are closer to the truth than others. Compare "JackW is 107" with "JackW is 5."

    The 2 neg quarters rule is just a rule of thumb, it is not part of the definition of a recession and other criteria are available.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    Quarterly growth was negative in 2010Q4, 2011Q4, 2012Q2, 2012Q4. And zero in 2012Q1.
    By our definition (and possibly a universal one?) that is NOT recession. You need 2 quarters in a row, as I understand it.

    You're right that the quote "deeper" implies "already was". The paragraph is problematic.
    So you agree it is not as close to the truth as you can get without being true?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Only know the Empire State one - New York - and that's only because of the Alicia Keys song.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,093
    edited November 2020
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    No, some false statements are closer to the truth than others. Compare "JackW is 107" with "JackW is 5."

    The 2 neg quarters rule is just a rule of thumb, it is not part of the definition of a recession and other criteria are available.
    Perhaps JackW is counting in scores, which is the SI unit of age for men called Jack.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hey HYUFD and Carnyx:

    All very entertaining, but when does the discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin begin?

    Most angels can dance on the head of a pin.
    Most, or a majority?
    Quite. HYUFD would argue that white was black because he found an obscure reference in the OED of a once-only usage in a Spencerian poem, and then suddenly shift seamlessly to a discussion of the Japanese linguistic distinction between blue and green.
    That reminds me of another trivia question: what is the blackest object in the solar system?
    Rudy Giuliani’s heart?
    Intuitively the sun - because I know light takes a long time to come out of it, ergo the same for light falling on it?
  • RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    The GDP per head is interesting because UK/Germany/US are pretty much a wash. But France.....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
  • I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Foxy said:

    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

    I hope both of you remain well.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yeah I saw the quote yesterday and thought it was wrong. Maybe the US uses a different definition for recession, but really the one that matters for the UK is our definition and on that basis Obama is clearly wrong.

    This is fairly typical for Americans writing about the UK, we pay far more attention to them, than they do to us.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    algarkirk said:

    Pedant note on Emperors: Byzantine Boris sounds great but the basilaic Borises are Bulgarian Borises not Byzantine Borises.

    I think there were 2 Byzantine Basils and 3 Bulgarian Boris's.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
    What happened in most Western countries, was a crash followed by a return to a similar growth trajectory to that which they had had previously.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    How the Express sees it.

    "Trump fightback BEGINS: Secret memo shows President's bid to overturn election result
    A $400million donation by the chief executive of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg is the focus of one of the legal challenges from the Trump team to overturn the provisional US election results."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1362945/Donald-Trump-latest-news-US-election-result-2020-Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-legal-challenge
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Are next Con Leader and next Lab Leader related contingencies for betting purposes?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    slade said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pedant note on Emperors: Byzantine Boris sounds great but the basilaic Borises are Bulgarian Borises not Byzantine Borises.

    I think there were 2 Byzantine Basils and 3 Bulgarian Boris's.
    Since he’s Circassian anyway, all of them are incorrect.
  • DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I do feel sorry for him insofar as he's got the two best managers in the business working at Liverpool and Manchester City right now, and probably for the foreseeable future.

    But he's not very good, could he do a Klopp and turn Mane and Salah into world class players?

    Nope, he's not very good, look at how Pogba plays for France and compare him to the player that is ending up on the bench for United.
  • Spurs are going top of the league. i am sure the special one won't remind anybody of this.
  • Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hey HYUFD and Carnyx:

    All very entertaining, but when does the discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin begin?

    Most angels can dance on the head of a pin.
    Most, or a majority?
    Quite. HYUFD would argue that white was black because he found an obscure reference in the OED of a once-only usage in a Spencerian poem, and then suddenly shift seamlessly to a discussion of the Japanese linguistic distinction between blue and green.
    That reminds me of another trivia question: what is the blackest object in the solar system?
    Rudy Giuliani’s heart?
    Intuitively the sun - because I know light takes a long time to come out of it, ergo the same for light falling on it?
    Correct. The Sun's spectrum is very close to that of a perfect black-body radiator.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Using the first letters of each US state, what is the longest word you can spell, starting from any state, moving to adjacent states and not using any twice.
  • isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited November 2020
    dr_spyn said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

    I hope both of you remain well.
    Not a lot of symptoms so far. A bit of headache, runny nose, slight sore throat. Early days though.

    Not very typical symptoms, but Mrs Foxy thinks the Muscadet rather vinigary. Tastes fine to me. Interestingly the other staff in the outbreak (which seems to have happened in staff break room on Friday 13th) also have runny noses and fairly cold like symptoms, rather than classical symptoms.
  • DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I do feel sorry for him insofar as he's got the two best managers in the business working at Liverpool and Manchester City right now, and probably for the foreseeable future.

    But he's not very good, could he do a Klopp and turn Mane and Salah into world class players?

    Nope, he's not very good, look at how Pogba plays for France and compare him to the player that is ending up on the bench for United.
    Of the problems at United OGS is about 1% the cause.

    Will United dominate again with him in charge? No

    But then again given the structural problems at Old Trafford with the current owners, with Woodward, no Director of Football and a whole heap of commercially orientated structure the football team is not under performing due to OGS but what the Glazers brought to football 15 years ago.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
    But the years before and after the 2008/9 recession had low growth as well whereas the opposite happened before the 1974/5 and 1980/1 recessions and to an extent the 1991 recession.

    The last year the UK had GDP per head growth of above 3% was back in 2000.

    I think the UK economic cycle should have led to a mild recession in 2001/2 and by not doing so it stored up problems which we still haven't sorted out.
  • Did she use the same tweet about Cummings ?

    Because plenty of others did.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited November 2020
    isam said:

    Are next Con Leader and next Lab Leader related contingencies for betting purposes?

    Not really.

    Only in the last 57 years have the Tories and Labour had a leadership contest in the same year (2016)* and 1963 was the last year the Tories and Labour changed leaders in the same year, and one of those was due to a death.

    *If you wanted to be pernickety, you can say 2019 was when both parties began a leadership contest in the same year.
  • Another Richard

    Possibly herd immunity here due to our young population?

    Its possible.

    Its worthy of proper research.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Foxy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

    I hope both of you remain well.
    Not a lot of symptoms so far. A bit of headache, runny nose, slight sore throat. Early days though.

    Not very typical symptoms, but Mrs Foxy thinks the Muscadet rather vinigary. Tastes fine to me. Interestingly the other staff in the outbreak (which seems to have happened in staff break room on Friday 13th) also have runny noses and fairly cold like symptoms, rather than classical symptoms.
    The best of luck to you both.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
  • Foxy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

    I hope both of you remain well.
    Not a lot of symptoms so far. A bit of headache, runny nose, slight sore throat. Early days though.

    Not very typical symptoms, but Mrs Foxy thinks the Muscadet rather vinigary. Tastes fine to me. Interestingly the other staff in the outbreak (which seems to have happened in staff break room on Friday 13th) also have runny noses and fairly cold like symptoms, rather than classical symptoms.
    Tim Spector of ZOE app has been saying last couple of days that the classic three symptoms are a bit of a problem - we are focusing too much on them. Fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, sore throat other early symptoms.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Maybe there should be a minimum height requirement for parliament.
  • dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    isam said:

    Are next Con Leader and next Lab Leader related contingencies for betting purposes?

    Not really imo but 365 wont let me place a double on next con and lab leaders.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited November 2020

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Yes, an astonishing range of severity, seemingly down to the bodies own inflammatory responses.

    A Consultant colleague in my Trust died of it the other day.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited November 2020
    From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
    But the years before and after the 2008/9 recession had low growth as well whereas the opposite happened before the 1974/5 and 1980/1 recessions and to an extent the 1991 recession.

    The last year the UK had GDP per head growth of above 3% was back in 2000.

    I think the UK economic cycle should have led to a mild recession in 2001/2 and by not doing so it stored up problems which we still haven't sorted out.
    Don't forget that the greatest the proportion of retired people, the harder it is for GDP per head to grow rapidly, as they will have zero (or very little) economic output.

    So if every worker increases their output by 4% and, and workers are 75% of the population, that's a 3% growth in GDP per capita.

    But if the proportion of retirees increases, and workers only make up 50% of the population, then growth in GDP per capita drops to 2%.

    Japan has one of the greatest increases in economic activity per hour worked in the last decade. But because the number of people of working age is in decline, and the number of retirees is increasing, its GDP per capita growth has been poor.
  • DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I do feel sorry for him insofar as he's got the two best managers in the business working at Liverpool and Manchester City right now, and probably for the foreseeable future.

    But he's not very good, could he do a Klopp and turn Mane and Salah into world class players?

    Nope, he's not very good, look at how Pogba plays for France and compare him to the player that is ending up on the bench for United.
    Of the problems at United OGS is about 1% the cause.

    Will United dominate again with him in charge? No

    But then again given the structural problems at Old Trafford with the current owners, with Woodward, no Director of Football and a whole heap of commercially orientated structure the football team is not under performing due to OGS but what the Glazers brought to football 15 years ago.
    Leave Ed Woodward alone, he's improved Manchester United's revenues unbelievably, allowing United to spend nearly a billion pounds on transfers since Sir Alex Ferguson left.
  • dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Its also likely caused the reduction in flu and common cold cases.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c

    How exactly was/is the home office meant to get a grip on the small boats issue?
  • DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I do feel sorry for him insofar as he's got the two best managers in the business working at Liverpool and Manchester City right now, and probably for the foreseeable future.

    But he's not very good, could he do a Klopp and turn Mane and Salah into world class players?

    Nope, he's not very good, look at how Pogba plays for France and compare him to the player that is ending up on the bench for United.
    Of the problems at United OGS is about 1% the cause.

    Will United dominate again with him in charge? No

    But then again given the structural problems at Old Trafford with the current owners, with Woodward, no Director of Football and a whole heap of commercially orientated structure the football team is not under performing due to OGS but what the Glazers brought to football 15 years ago.
    Leave Ed Woodward alone, he's improved Manchester United's revenues unbelievably, allowing United to spend nearly a billion pounds on transfers since Sir Alex Ferguson left.
    To give an insight into the Glazers way of doing things

    We've spent almost £1bn in interest payments during their time and still have debts, purely down to allow them to take over of £1bn.

    This is a club that ran a profit, despite spending more than every other team, for tehir entire history.

    Woodward will be selling rice advertising to the Chinese rather than worrying about what is wrong with the organisation in Manchester.
  • Foxy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

    I hope both of you remain well.
    Not a lot of symptoms so far. A bit of headache, runny nose, slight sore throat. Early days though.

    Not very typical symptoms, but Mrs Foxy thinks the Muscadet rather vinigary. Tastes fine to me. Interestingly the other staff in the outbreak (which seems to have happened in staff break room on Friday 13th) also have runny noses and fairly cold like symptoms, rather than classical symptoms.
    Tim Spector of ZOE app has been saying last couple of days that the classic three symptoms are a bit of a problem - we are focusing too much on them. Fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, sore throat other early symptoms.
    I wonder if different types (sex/race/age/weight/location) of people get different symptoms.
  • From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c

    How exactly was/is the home office meant to get a grip on the small boats issue?
    This is her problem, she overpromises, under delivers because her plans are rubbish*, is way too belligerent, which means she's rubbed up the French the wrong way, who aren't willing to help her.

    *See this

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53719575
  • DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I do feel sorry for him insofar as he's got the two best managers in the business working at Liverpool and Manchester City right now, and probably for the foreseeable future.

    But he's not very good, could he do a Klopp and turn Mane and Salah into world class players?

    Nope, he's not very good, look at how Pogba plays for France and compare him to the player that is ending up on the bench for United.
    Of the problems at United OGS is about 1% the cause.

    Will United dominate again with him in charge? No

    But then again given the structural problems at Old Trafford with the current owners, with Woodward, no Director of Football and a whole heap of commercially orientated structure the football team is not under performing due to OGS but what the Glazers brought to football 15 years ago.
    Leave Ed Woodward alone, he's improved Manchester United's revenues unbelievably, allowing United to spend nearly a billion pounds on transfers since Sir Alex Ferguson left.
    To give an insight into the Glazers way of doing things

    We've spent almost £1bn in interest payments during their time and still have debts, purely down to allow them to take over of £1bn.

    This is a club that ran a profit, despite spending more than every other team, for tehir entire history.

    Woodward will be selling rice advertising to the Chinese rather than worrying about what is wrong with the organisation in Manchester.
    In fact, see the randomness of the signings that Woodward makes each transfer window to have a clue why no manager has a chance with the current setup.

    Woodward spent £40m on Van de Beek, yet clearly he was not the kind of player Ole wanted.

    Does not matter though, the Glazers continue to take out £10m's each year for 'consultancy'.

    I know of no United fans who wants Ole sacked, despite everyone expecting a mid table finish this season.

    Until UEFA or FIFA start to make rules against such ownership things are not changing.
  • dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Nonsense, SWEDEN!
  • From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c

    Easy.
    1. Boris hasn't any loyalty to PP, or anyone else. But he'll be dammed if he's going to be told what to do.

    2. He's bought PP's loyalty for the next two months of the Great Brexit Climbdown.

    3. You have to be fully behind someone before you can stab them in the back...
  • dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Mask wearing doesn't seem to be the miracle cure in other European countries.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say that the T and 5 system has improved significantly.

    Mrs Foxy notified by work of possible contact in staff break room Wed PM. Has symptoms of cold, so booked test same evening 2 miles away.

    Friday 1030, notified of positive result. I have some symptoms, so get test at 1200 same day 2 miles away. Outnumbered 10/1 by testing staff despite Oadby being a hotspot.

    Sat 1500, Mrs Foxy fills in T and T form online. I am phoned at 1700 to be told to self isolate (though was already).

    A much better timecourse than a few months ago.

    I hope both of you remain well.
    Not a lot of symptoms so far. A bit of headache, runny nose, slight sore throat. Early days though.

    Not very typical symptoms, but Mrs Foxy thinks the Muscadet rather vinigary. Tastes fine to me. Interestingly the other staff in the outbreak (which seems to have happened in staff break room on Friday 13th) also have runny noses and fairly cold like symptoms, rather than classical symptoms.
    Tim Spector of ZOE app has been saying last couple of days that the classic three symptoms are a bit of a problem - we are focusing too much on them. Fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, sore throat other early symptoms.
    I wonder if different types (sex/race/age/weight/location) of people get different symptoms.
    The other affected staff were White British, Filipino, Punjabi and Mauritian. No real obvious pattern.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    I just searched online to see who had received a tongue lashing from Priti.

    The results were not quite what I was anticipating. I now need to delete my browsing history.
  • rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
    But the years before and after the 2008/9 recession had low growth as well whereas the opposite happened before the 1974/5 and 1980/1 recessions and to an extent the 1991 recession.

    The last year the UK had GDP per head growth of above 3% was back in 2000.

    I think the UK economic cycle should have led to a mild recession in 2001/2 and by not doing so it stored up problems which we still haven't sorted out.
    Don't forget that the greatest the proportion of retired people, the harder it is for GDP per head to grow rapidly, as they will have zero (or very little) economic output.

    So if every worker increases their output by 4% and, and workers are 75% of the population, that's a 3% growth in GDP per capita.

    But if the proportion of retirees increases, and workers only make up 50% of the population, then growth in GDP per capita drops to 2%.

    Japan has one of the greatest increases in economic activity per hour worked in the last decade. But because the number of people of working age is in decline, and the number of retirees is increasing, its GDP per capita growth has been poor.
    Sure but can you put the theory into practice.

    How much did the UK's proportion of retired people change per decade ?

    You could equally suggest that the increase in students reduced GDP as they weren't working either.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Its also likely caused the reduction in flu and common cold cases.
    Massively so, at least in the southern hemisphere.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-season-never-came-to-the-southern-hemisphere1/
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    Nope. Tottenham completely worked City out.

    Fully deserved 2-0 victory.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2020

    isam said:

    Are next Con Leader and next Lab Leader related contingencies for betting purposes?

    Not really.

    Only in the last 57 years have the Tories and Labour had a leadership contest in the same year (2016)* and 1963 was the last year the Tories and Labour changed leaders in the same year, and one of those was due to a death.

    *If you wanted to be pernickety, you can say 2019 was when both parties began a leadership contest in the same year.
    Or "pinnicity" as I say!

    The bookie I am trying to back my fancies with aren't offering the double anyway, seems like they should to me really
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
  • tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    A big difference between the spring and autumn covid waves in the UK is that London has only been lightly affected in the second wave.

    Any ideas as to why ?

    Other places hit hard in the spring - Lombardy and Belgium for example - have been hit hard again in the autumn.

    I don't think it's rocket science. As a stereotypical rule Londoner only socialise in pretty narrow social groups. Meanwhile all sources of superspreading outside of those social groups (nightclubs/packed pubs/London Underground) have been removed from the equation in any material way.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2020

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Has anyone ever said to you that the constantly sarcastic way you dismiss anyone who doesn't sing your tune makes them less likely to listen to what you have to say?

    No offence intended, but personally, despite thinking you probably know your stuff, I switch off a bit
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    They ain't won yet. Leicester and Pool play tommorow
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Has anyone ever said to you that the constantly sarcastic way you dismiss anyone who doesn't sing your tune makes them less likely to listen to what you have to say?

    No offence intended, but personally, despite thinking you probably know your stuff, I switch off a bit
    Agreed. Although it is difficult because i constantly mix up AndyCooke and AndyJS. It's the way that anyone who asks any questions or expresses even the slightest scepticism about aspects of the virus, the statements by the scientists or the extreme measures taken by the Government(s) to combat it, is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist arguing that the whole thing is a hoax.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
    But the years before and after the 2008/9 recession had low growth as well whereas the opposite happened before the 1974/5 and 1980/1 recessions and to an extent the 1991 recession.

    The last year the UK had GDP per head growth of above 3% was back in 2000.

    I think the UK economic cycle should have led to a mild recession in 2001/2 and by not doing so it stored up problems which we still haven't sorted out.
    Don't forget that the greatest the proportion of retired people, the harder it is for GDP per head to grow rapidly, as they will have zero (or very little) economic output.

    So if every worker increases their output by 4% and, and workers are 75% of the population, that's a 3% growth in GDP per capita.

    But if the proportion of retirees increases, and workers only make up 50% of the population, then growth in GDP per capita drops to 2%.

    Japan has one of the greatest increases in economic activity per hour worked in the last decade. But because the number of people of working age is in decline, and the number of retirees is increasing, its GDP per capita growth has been poor.
    Sure but can you put the theory into practice.

    How much did the UK's proportion of retired people change per decade ?

    You could equally suggest that the increase in students reduced GDP as they weren't working either.
    There's a pretty clear correlation on this, irrespective of country:

    Falling dependency ratios are associated with rising economic growth and rising ones, with falling ones.

    Italy and Japan have been the poorest major economic performers of any major economies in the last two decades. What do they have in common? They have the oldest populations and the worst dependency ratios. In both cases, economic growth hit the skid marks when the number of working aged people peaked, while the number of retirees continued rising.

    This means a diminishing number of workers are saddled with the pension costs of an increasing number of retirees.
  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    They ain't won yet. Leicester and Pool play tommorow
    My strategy has been to lay any side in Europe this season for the PL.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c

    Surely he’s not going to fritter away more political capital defending another one who is already doomed?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Mask wearing doesn't seem to be the miracle cure in other European countries.
    Because it’s not a silver bullet.
    We still have hundreds dying per day, even with that, and social distancing, and taking care.
    None of them are silver bullets. They’re all incremental benefits that add up.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    edited November 2020
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Has anyone ever said to you that the constantly sarcastic way you dismiss anyone who doesn't sing your tune makes them less likely to listen to what you have to say?

    No offence intended, but personally, despite thinking you probably know your stuff, I switch off a bit
    I tried being all approachable and positive and tolerant for months. Hey, I remember discussing the first wave with you and being very careful not to get dismissive or short in anyway; maybe you remember. The relentless repetition of the stuff that was wrong again and again and again just gets me down. I’ve run out of fucks to give, basically.

    “Less likely to listen?” There was always zero likelihood of listening; I learned that over the weeks and months. I think it was the continuation of the godawfully stupid “False Positives!” shite that finally wore me down completely.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Strange that isn't it? Two clubs that weren't in the CL have won it recently but none that were in the purgatory of the EL - maybe not that strange as you say, because of the fixture pile up, but most team play reserves until it gets near the end
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Oh, I see what you mean. Arsenal lost to PAOK in round 1 in 1997-98 and Blackburn lost to a Swedish club in round 1 in 1994-95.

    But I wouldn't count on Europe hampering Spurs...
  • dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Mask wearing doesn't seem to be the miracle cure in other European countries.
    Because it’s not a silver bullet.
    We still have hundreds dying per day, even with that, and social distancing, and taking care.
    None of them are silver bullets. They’re all incremental benefits that add up.
    Yet the UK is suffering much less now than in the spring while other countries, Italy and Belgium for example, are doing as bad and others are doing much worse.
  • IanB2 said:

    From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c

    Surely he’s not going to fritter away more political capital defending another one who is already doomed?
    Of course he is.

    In the short term, there are several ways this seems to strengthen Boris. Not the government, just Boris.

    In the long term, when careful husbanding of political capital matters... well, has Boris ever thought beyond the end of his todger?
  • isam said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Strange that isn't it? Two clubs that weren't in the CL have won it recently but none that were in the purgatory of the EL - maybe not that strange as you say, because of the fixture pile up, but most team play reserves until it gets near the end
    Very strange, because in my eyes, playing Thursday-Sunday is no different to playing Wednesday-Saturday like the CL teams do.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Oh, I see what you mean. Arsenal lost to PAOK in round 1 in 1997-98 and Blackburn lost to a Swedish club in round 1 in 1994-95.

    But I wouldn't count on Europe hampering Spurs...
    I have a side bet with a friend who is a Real Madrid fan.

    Real Madrid get relegated to the EL this season, meet Spurs and get knocked out by a Gareth Bale goal.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Betfair Exchange just settled Heung-Min Son to Score anytime as a loser in the Tottenham City game
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    My uncle, 76 years old, cancer survivor.. slightly overweight... has got Covid. Had a positive test 12 days ago, and says he feels like he has a cold, but in any other year he would have gone to work no problem

    The wide range of how this effects people is quite amazing.
    Do we have a convincing explanation yet? Or any speculative ones?
    The speculative theory that my father and his former colleagues say one of the reasons this wave doesn't seem as deadly/strong as the first one is down to people wearing masks, engaging in social distancing, washing their hands regularly, and people doing their best to avoid it.

    That's made the transmission less strong.
    Completely implausible. I mean, it fits all the data and the science of how the virus spreads, but surely some handwaving and talking about herd immunity which specially happens here but not in places which have had far more people infected than us would be better.
    Mask wearing doesn't seem to be the miracle cure in other European countries.
    Because it’s not a silver bullet.
    We still have hundreds dying per day, even with that, and social distancing, and taking care.
    None of them are silver bullets. They’re all incremental benefits that add up.
    Yet the UK is suffering much less now than in the spring while other countries, Italy and Belgium for example, are doing as bad and others are doing much worse.
    I am not sure that we are doing much better than first wave. In Leicester we have more admissions than April, and more baked in. That is not that unusual across the country.

    Probably better than most of Europe, but we ain't done yet.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    edited November 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    RobD said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Some interesting comments from Obama in his new book about his relationship with Cameron

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1328667012529352704?s=20

    Given that the UK economy didn't 'fall deeper into a recession' we can assume Obama is some mix of:

    1) A liar
    2) An economic illiterate
    3) Is talking about things he knows sod all about
    4) Can't be bothered to do basic research

    Or as he's a politician probably a mixture of all four.
    I was wondering that myself.
    Attempt at charitable interpretation: is there a different definition for recession in the US? A quick glance at Q-by-Q growth in the UK shows four months from Cameron's election through to 2014 where quarterly growth in the UK was negative, and one where it was zero. The zero was between two negatives.
    As I understand it, that's not technically a recession in UK terms, but I do not know whether that's a shared metric.

    Either way, if it is false, it's as close to the truth as you can get without touching it, and the central charge is still possibly valid, that austerity didn't serve the economy well. I leave it up to others to argue the toss over that one.
    It's factually incorrect. It's as far as all other false statements are to the truth.
    Yes, in the same way that saying queen Victoria died on 23 January 1901 is factually incorrect. But as close as you can get whilst still being wrong. It really does free one from the charge of being stupid or illiterate, even if the charge of "not checking things" sticks. Because that's where the discussion came from.
    That's bollocks. The statement even implies the UK was already in recession (fall deeper into recession). Last time I checked the UK was not in recession for any quarter during his tenure.
    From the ONS, quarters with negative growth after the crash...

    2008 Q2 -0.6
    2008 Q3 -1.6
    2008 Q4 -2.1
    2009 Q1 -1.7
    2009 Q2 -0.2

    Cameron became PM In 2010 and left in 2016.

    In that period we have 2 quarters where negative growth is recorded.

    2012 Q2 -0.1

    and

    2012 Q4 -0.2

    Incidentally, this is interesting

    image
    An alternative way of looking at GDP per head:

    Cumulative GDP per head increase

    1956-1965 25.4%
    1966-1975 21.5%
    1976-1985 22.6%
    1986-1995 23.2%
    1996-2005 27.3%
    2006-2015 5.3%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/pn2

    You can get slightly different results by varying the period dates but there was a definite and significant reduction.
    Precisely where the recessions fall relative to the intervals can probably change those numbers quite a bit. 1996-2005 was uninterrupted growth, whereas there was an enormous crash within the first two years of the last period.
    But the years before and after the 2008/9 recession had low growth as well whereas the opposite happened before the 1974/5 and 1980/1 recessions and to an extent the 1991 recession.

    The last year the UK had GDP per head growth of above 3% was back in 2000.

    I think the UK economic cycle should have led to a mild recession in 2001/2 and by not doing so it stored up problems which we still haven't sorted out.
    Don't forget that the greatest the proportion of retired people, the harder it is for GDP per head to grow rapidly, as they will have zero (or very little) economic output.

    So if every worker increases their output by 4% and, and workers are 75% of the population, that's a 3% growth in GDP per capita.

    But if the proportion of retirees increases, and workers only make up 50% of the population, then growth in GDP per capita drops to 2%.

    Japan has one of the greatest increases in economic activity per hour worked in the last decade. But because the number of people of working age is in decline, and the number of retirees is increasing, its GDP per capita growth has been poor.
    Sure but can you put the theory into practice.

    How much did the UK's proportion of retired people change per decade ?

    You could equally suggest that the increase in students reduced GDP as they weren't working either.
    There's a pretty clear correlation on this, irrespective of country:

    Falling dependency ratios are associated with rising economic growth and rising ones, with falling ones.

    Italy and Japan have been the poorest major economic performers of any major economies in the last two decades. What do they have in common? They have the oldest populations and the worst dependency ratios. In both cases, economic growth hit the skid marks when the number of working aged people peaked, while the number of retirees continued rising.

    This means a diminishing number of workers are saddled with the pension costs of an increasing number of retirees.
    Certainly.

    But there are other factors involved apart from workers and pensioners - there are those too young to work and those who don't work for other reasons.

    In the UK the number employed was pretty level at around 25m throughout the 1970 to the mid 1990s but has been over 30m from 2013 onwards.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/mgrz/lms

    That doesn't suggest that the proportion of the population who are working has changed much.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Oh, I see what you mean. Arsenal lost to PAOK in round 1 in 1997-98 and Blackburn lost to a Swedish club in round 1 in 1994-95.

    But I wouldn't count on Europe hampering Spurs...
    I have a side bet with a friend who is a Real Madrid fan.

    Real Madrid get relegated to the EL this season, meet Spurs and get knocked out by a Gareth Bale goal.
    These football 'managers' of whom you write ... do they ever shout or swear at underlings? This might explain why they're always being sacked. I've often wondered.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    isam said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Strange that isn't it? Two clubs that weren't in the CL have won it recently but none that were in the purgatory of the EL - maybe not that strange as you say, because of the fixture pile up, but most team play reserves until it gets near the end
    Very strange, because in my eyes, playing Thursday-Sunday is no different to playing Wednesday-Saturday like the CL teams do.
    Sunday matches don't get the same atmosphere as Saturday home crowds. That is much less of an issue this season.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    The key is not Labour going into government with the Tories, the key is getting a Unionist majority next year so even if Sturgeon stays First Minister she has no mandate for indyref2 and Labour will not be able to gain the seats to do that in Glasgow and the Central Belt without Tory tactical votes
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited November 2020
    HYUFD said:

    The key is not Labour going into government with the Tories, the key is getting a Unionist majority next year so even if Sturgeon stays First Minister she has no mandate for indyref2 and Labour will not be able to gain the seats to do that in Glasgow and the Central Belt without Tory tactical votes
    Does that mean that if they do get a majority, they will have a mandate for indyref2?
  • IanB2 said:

    From The Sunday Times, it makes you wonder why Boris Johnson is keen to waste so much political capital for someone he's likely to get rid of soon.

    Downing Street is keen to prop up Patel for now, but her long-term future is less secure. Multiple sources say that Johnson is set to remove her as home secretary in the next reshuffle, with her deputy, Kit Malthouse, seen as the most likely to replace her.

    “Priti is very popular with the parliamentary party and the grassroots membership,” one senior Tory said. “The view of the political operation in No 10 was always that she should be protected. But there is a view now that she should be reshuffled on competence grounds.” There is continual frustration that the Home Office has not got a grip on things, the small boats [bringing illegal migrants] in particular.”

    Perhaps, in the end, it’ll be her supposed political allies who are creating an environment so hostile that it costs Patel her job.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-is-safe-for-now-but-the-axe-is-still-ready-to-fall-l26nqhb8c

    Surely he’s not going to fritter away more political capital defending another one who is already doomed?
    Of course he is.

    In the short term, there are several ways this seems to strengthen Boris. Not the government, just Boris.

    In the long term, when careful husbanding of political capital matters... well, has Boris ever thought beyond the end of his todger?
    Johnson won't lose face by sacking Patel in the teeth of confected outrage because the confectioners are fellow scribblers and they know each other too well. But he'll certainly find a way to promote her to oblivion before long. Leader of the Lords, maybe?
  • alex_ said:

    A big difference between the spring and autumn covid waves in the UK is that London has only been lightly affected in the second wave.

    Any ideas as to why ?

    Other places hit hard in the spring - Lombardy and Belgium for example - have been hit hard again in the autumn.

    I don't think it's rocket science. As a stereotypical rule Londoner only socialise in pretty narrow social groups. Meanwhile all sources of superspreading outside of those social groups (nightclubs/packed pubs/London Underground) have been removed from the equation in any material way.
    But those factors also apply in northern England and that's been hit pretty hard in the autumn.

    Likewise Belgium, Italy etc will have similar factors applying.

    It seems that London has pretty uniquely done very well for some reasons including possibly good luck.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    I can't believe Manchester United sacked José Mourinho for the donkey that is Ole Gunnar Solskjær.

    Jose always does well when he goes to a club but his desire to fight with everyone and blame everyone else for any set back inevitably becomes counterproductive after a couple of years.

    Spurs do not deserve to be winning 2-0. They are playing well but City have dominated.

    As for OGS, I don't think he has the sophistication to make the best use of what he has got.
    I'm snowed under with work so didn't pay complete attention to the game, but Spurs seemed very comfortable in that match. It was entirely predictable that Man City would have all of the ball but Spurs would win.

    As an Arsenal fan I thought we'd dodged the bullet of Spurs winning the league any time soon. I think we have to consider them very much in the race; certainly more so than Man City.
    Has a side ever won the PL whilst starting the season in the Europa League?
    Including UEFA Cup? Yes, Arsenal in 1997-98 and I guess Blackburn Rovers in 1994-95.
    I'm not counting the UEFA cup as IIRC you could only play two games and get knocked out. Those matches also used to take place on Tuesdays and Wednesday, so not the Thursday-Sunday routine you get with the Europa League.
    Strange that isn't it? Two clubs that weren't in the CL have won it recently but none that were in the purgatory of the EL - maybe not that strange as you say, because of the fixture pile up, but most team play reserves until it gets near the end
    Very strange, because in my eyes, playing Thursday-Sunday is no different to playing Wednesday-Saturday like the CL teams do.
    Wednesday-Saturday is as bad as it gets though - sometimes it is Tue-Sat or Wed-Sun isnt it?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
This discussion has been closed.