Here's an unexpected downside of homeworking. During a phone call today with a new colleague I have yet to meet in person I remarked about the old school photo of himself wearing school uniform he had posted as his LinkedIn profile pic. Turns out he took it himself last month in a brand new blue suit he had bought especially.
What line of business are you in again?
Barrister I believe, they struggle when they don't have a solicitor doing all the hard work for them.
I think Trump would have edged it if Joe had tripped over his dog a month ago. Real old man stuff.
Pretty crass ageist stuff.
Injuries to the bones in the feet are easily done, I was in a walking boot for five months last autumn after sustaining a hairline fracture to my large metatarsal in an innocuous encounter with a football. I'm in my forties.
It's literally an unlucky break in most cases, but you right go ahead and be waspish about it.
I was actually just objectively thinking about the possibility of this incident, amplified by Trump on twitter the way he does best, being Dole falling off the stage in 1996 all over again.
Odd post.
Not really, you could've written that but instead you went with "real old man stuff".
He's listing one of the many benefits of vaccination.
Absolutely, it should be a requirement for venues, airlines etc to check vaccination status as part of their Covid-secure measures. Once the vaccines are being widely distributed, it would be totally irresponsible not to do so.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
SKS is a very bad politician, his actions last year when Labour had a once in a lifetime chance to split the tories and win a huge majority showed this.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
He's listing one of the many benefits of vaccination.
Does NZ control the policies of individual businesses?
No but plenty of businesses have said (publicly and privately) they will insist on proof of vaccination before they accept your business/use their services.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
SKS is a very bad politician, his actions last year when Labour had a once in a lifetime chance to split the tories and win a huge majority showed this.
Just as with the corollary with the spending. Cons have spent their arses off over Covid. Which is fine; it is a national emergency. But then they won't be able to complain when Lab says it will spend huge sums on, say, homelessness, as Lab will say that is a national emergency also.
What a shit show...they have had months to sort this. No negative test, no home to mummy and daddy, simples.
Hancock is asked by the BBC's Hugh Pym how effective mass testing of students can be if this is voluntary and not available to all students.
The health secretary says the government's goal is to make testing available to as many students as possible but this is "best done on a voluntary basis". However, he adds that he thinks the programme will "still make a difference".
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
Because whatever you think of Starmer, he's not mad. To vote against a Brexit deal when the only alternative is no deal would be an act of madness, so he won't do it. He knows he can't stop Brexit now - opposing a deal, however crap it is, would simply allow the Tories and their press to accuse Labour of trying to stop Brexit. I'm sure Starmer will take every opportunity to point out that, while Labour has no choice but to vote for the deal, the support is reluctant as the deal is rubbish (assuming it is, which I think is a fair assumption).
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
Yes but the rules get suspended a bit for crises. If Johnson needs his votes then what he should be doing is setting robust conditions for giving him those votes, which either humiliates Johnson if he accepts them or gives sks a get out if he doesn't. Opposition for its own sake will not play well on either issue.
Here's an unexpected downside of homeworking. During a phone call today with a new colleague I have yet to meet in person I remarked about the old school photo of himself wearing school uniform he had posted as his LinkedIn profile pic. Turns out he took it himself last month in a brand new blue suit he had bought especially.
What line of business are you in again?
Barrister I believe, they struggle when they don't have a solicitor doing all the hard work for them.
I thought (s)he was in employment law. Would know all about harrassment, intimidation, bullying, not treating people fairly, etc...
I'm an employment law solicitor. Yes, all a bit embarrassing.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
Yes but the rules get suspended a bit for crises. If Johnson needs his votes then what he should be doing is setting robust conditions for giving him those votes, which either humiliates Johnson if he accepts them or gives sks a get out if he doesn't. Opposition for its own sake will not play well on either issue.
Why isn't homelessness, or child poverty, or the fact that Tescos is still a private company a crisis?
Of course all those things are. If you are a Lab supporter.
SKS has undermined his one consistent response to the govt by ceding them this. He will find it very difficult to recover. It is the flood gates.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids.
Or better yet, people taking some personal responsibility? A lot of my students had already decided to voluntarily isolate in the week before travelling home, before the Uni had decided to go all online for the last week. They are not all idiots who think they are immune, and they want to go home safely.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids.
Or better yet, people taking some personal responsibility? A lot of my students had already decided to voluntarily isolate in the week before travelling home, before the Uni had decided to go all online for the last week. They are not all idiots who think they are immune, and they want to go home safely.
That's fine. Many people will use their common sense, but we also know many won't. And i am sure your students won't mind getting a test just to be sure.
I love the idea of people taking personal responsibility, but this crisis has shown us not enough are prepared to do it. They have to be told not to, and even then its all can i have a scotch egg or bottomless pasta bowls to enable me to booze all night.
On which topic what is the best real life rock star name? Jimi Hendrix? Suzi Quattro? Both sound made up but aren't. Then there is Steve Harley. Whose real name was Steve Nice. Which would have been super perfect had he been a punk.
Ice T's real name made me chuckle; Tracy Lauren Marrow.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
In the 1951 parliament?
Eleven years earlier than that.
Clem wasn't LOTO between May 1940 and May 1945.
But in May 1940 he was arguably the most powerful LOTO ever, helping oust the PM and pretty much putting a veto on Halifax succeeding Chamberlain.
Surely Attlee was decisive in removing Chamberlain - but quite a few Labour people favoured Halifax over Churchill. In the end, Halifax ruled himself out.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
Yup. So speak against, put down a symbolic amendment ("reluctantly, under duress"... I don't know, I teach physics for a living), but ultimately vote for The Rubbish Deal.
Because whist this will be a bad deal in any realistic sense, it's unlikely to be A Bad Deal in the "No Deal is better than A Bad Deal" sense.
Yes, that's the only course of action. I disagree that the deal will be 'rubbish', but Labour would be punished severely for a No Trade Deal scenario - conversely giving the Tories perfect cover to No Trade Deal.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right...
Except that isn't what he would be saying. I used that phrase an example, but he wouldn't be saying that on this decision. If he did it he would be presenting it as a last resort to mitigate as best everyone the mess Boris has made, and the danger that arises from leaving it to the Tories who might reject it for something even worse.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right...
Except that isn't what he would be saying. I used that phrase an example, but he wouldn't be saying that on this decision. If he did it he would be presenting it as a last resort to mitigate as best everyone the mess Boris has made, and the danger that arises from leaving it to the Tories who might reject it for something even worse.
People will only remember him supporting the government on the key issues of the days.
I made a mistake. I went to look what this Yeadon guy’s come out with now. He’s published a stunning piece on how the pandemic actually ended in June, everything since then is false positives, we all reached herd immunity, especially in the worst hit areas, and every report of anything different is made up.
I expect @Foxy will be deeply relieved that it’s not only all over now, but can be backdated five months or so.
We’d better start prosecuting ICNARC as well.
Seriously, what is it with this guy? What’s in it for him?
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
So illegal not to take a test on penalty of what? Being forcefully kept wherever they are? Arrested and detained? Kept away from their family?
I think Trump would have edged it if Joe had tripped over his dog a month ago. Real old man stuff.
Pretty crass ageist stuff.
Injuries to the bones in the feet are easily done, I was in a walking boot for five months last autumn after sustaining a hairline fracture to my large metatarsal in an innocuous encounter with a football. I'm in my forties.
It's literally an unlucky break in most cases, but you right go ahead and be waspish about it.
I was actually just objectively thinking about the possibility of this incident, amplified by Trump on twitter the way he does best, being Dole falling off the stage in 1996 all over again.
Odd post.
Not really, you could've written that but instead you went with "real old man stuff".
Which, really, it wasn't.
Just bog-standard ageist invective from you.
Getting weird now. "real old man stuff" was an indication of the hypothetical Trump attack line. And I am nearly 60 and have a titanium hip, so not really given to ageism or boneism.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
There is no way to enforce this. You clearly haven't got a clue how this works.
Half the people on my course are back home already, but the University has no idea who is at their term time address and who isn't. How do you expect them to make it mandatory to have a test before they "go home" if half of them are already at home?
For example, my home is my "term time address". Am I supposed to leave my home to go into Newcastle to have a test before I'm allowed uh, to go back home?
He's listing one of the many benefits of vaccination.
Absolutely, it should be a requirement for venues, airlines etc to check vaccination status as part of their Covid-secure measures. Once the vaccines are being widely distributed, it would be totally irresponsible not to do so.
Qantas CEO has already said they will amend their T&C to the effect.
Here's an unexpected downside of homeworking. During a phone call today with a new colleague I have yet to meet in person I remarked about the old school photo of himself wearing school uniform he had posted as his LinkedIn profile pic. Turns out he took it himself last month in a brand new blue suit he had bought especially.
What line of business are you in again?
Barrister I believe, they struggle when they don't have a solicitor doing all the hard work for them.
I thought (s)he was in employment law. Would know all about harrassment, intimidation, bullying, not treating people fairly, etc...
I'm an employment law solicitor. Yes, all a bit embarrassing.
(It's particularly in my mind because I today completed our firm's mandatory Code of Ethics and Compliance training with all the associated "John sends a joke to the office..." examples.)
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
So illegal not to take a test on penalty of what? Being forcefully kept wherever they are? Arrested and detained? Kept away from their family?
That your idea of a society you want to live in?
Dear fucking god.
Same way as it will be a requirement to be vaccinated to get on a plane, unis can make it a requirement of continued registration that you take a test. No different to say pro athletes must take regular drugs and now covid tests to be eligible to compete.
You are asking them to spit in a tube or put a cotton bud up their nose for a few seconds before they head home. Hardly North Korea type stuff.
They should actually be doing testing on leaving and arriving back.
Here's an unexpected downside of homeworking. During a phone call today with a new colleague I have yet to meet in person I remarked about the old school photo of himself wearing school uniform he had posted as his LinkedIn profile pic. Turns out he took it himself last month in a brand new blue suit he had bought especially.
What line of business are you in again?
Barrister I believe, they struggle when they don't have a solicitor doing all the hard work for them.
I thought (s)he was in employment law. Would know all about harrassment, intimidation, bullying, not treating people fairly, etc...
I'm an employment law solicitor. Yes, all a bit embarrassing.
(It's particularly in my mind because I today completed our firm's mandatory Code of Ethics and compliance training with all the associated "John sends a joke to the office..." examples.)
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
So illegal not to take a test on penalty of what? Being forcefully kept wherever they are? Arrested and detained? Kept away from their family?
That your idea of a society you want to live in?
Dear fucking god.
Same way as it will be a requirement to be vaccinated to get on a plane, unis can make it a requirement of continued registration that you take a test. No different to say pro athletes must take regular drugs and now covid tests to be eligible to compete.
It doesn't work like that, especially if the University is already "online only". Half their students are probably already hundreds of miles away.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
There is no way to enforce this. You clearly haven't got a clue how this works.
Half the people on my course are back home already, but the University has no idea who is at their term time address and who isn't. How do you expect them to make it mandatory to have a test before they "go home" if half of them are already at home?
For example, my home is my "term time address". Am I supposed to leave my home to go into Newcastle to have a test before I'm allowed uh, to go back home?
I'm guessing retired. I have no comment on his/her's family circumstances but I can wildly speculate in the comfort of my own mind.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right...
Except that isn't what he would be saying. I used that phrase an example, but he wouldn't be saying that on this decision. If he did it he would be presenting it as a last resort to mitigate as best everyone the mess Boris has made, and the danger that arises from leaving it to the Tories who might reject it for something even worse.
People will only remember him supporting the government on the key issues of the days.
Only if you do the Tories job for them and shoot yourself in the foot.
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
So illegal not to take a test on penalty of what? Being forcefully kept wherever they are? Arrested and detained? Kept away from their family?
That your idea of a society you want to live in?
Dear fucking god.
Same way as it will be a requirement to be vaccinated to get on a plane, unis can make it a requirement of continued registration that you take a test. No different to say pro athletes must take regular drugs and now covid tests to be eligible to compete.
You are asking them to spit in a tube or put a cotton bud up their nose for a few seconds before they head home. Hardly North Korea type stuff.
They should actually be doing testing on leaving and arriving back.
You've lost it.
Getting on a plane = something I want to do and not a fundamental human right. Going home to see family = fundamental human right.
And as others have said, I'm not sure when you last rubbed shoulders with the student fraternity (or sorority) but all the ones I know are extremely keen not to give it to their parents/grandparents and will absolutely get tested.
But if they don't then they don't. And that's life.
Here's an unexpected downside of homeworking. During a phone call today with a new colleague I have yet to meet in person I remarked about the old school photo of himself wearing school uniform he had posted as his LinkedIn profile pic. Turns out he took it himself last month in a brand new blue suit he had bought especially.
What line of business are you in again?
Barrister I believe, they struggle when they don't have a solicitor doing all the hard work for them.
I thought (s)he was in employment law. Would know all about harrassment, intimidation, bullying, not treating people fairly, etc...
I'm an employment law solicitor. Yes, all a bit embarrassing.
(It's particularly in my mind because I today completed our firm's mandatory Code of Ethics and compliance training with all the associated "John sends a joke to the office..." examples.)
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right...
Except that isn't what he would be saying. I used that phrase an example, but he wouldn't be saying that on this decision. If he did it he would be presenting it as a last resort to mitigate as best everyone the mess Boris has made, and the danger that arises from leaving it to the Tories who might reject it for something even worse.
People will only remember him supporting the government on the key issues of the days.
Only if you do the Tories job for them and shoot yourself in the foot.
I made a mistake. I went to look what this Yeadon guy’s come out with now. He’s published a stunning piece on how the pandemic actually ended in June, everything since then is false positives, we all reached herd immunity, especially in the worst hit areas, and every report of anything different is made up.
I expect @Foxy will be deeply relieved that it’s not only all over now, but can be backdated five months or so.
We’d better start prosecuting ICNARC as well.
Seriously, what is it with this guy? What’s in it for him?
Whistle blower disease.
It seems to hit even highly qualified individuals. They start off down a path of enquiry. Instead of turning back when the facts are against the hypothesis, this make up more and more ludicrous and bizarre explanations for the facts being against them.
In the final stage I (and the other members of the High Council of the Illuminati) tell the lizard men in the people suits to order the Zeta Reticulans to kidnap them and imprison them in Youtube*.
*We tried ConHome, but the Zeta Reticulans had a very good union rep who tried to negotiate for hazard pay on the the grounds of mental health.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
So what? It's about getting into power so you can enact the policies that you believe will benefit the country and that should include, as I said, "your" party's approach to "just about everything".
Just about everything leaves room for your love of the current govt's agricultural or any other particular policy. But you should be in vigorous disagreement with just about every other of their policies.
The light of dawn is on the horizon, says Hancock.
Bollocks.
I'm no sure you'll find the light of dawn otherwise.
Well, I mean honestly, the crap that ministers come out with. In the context of the Plague, the "light of dawn" might be visible come about March, *IF* they somehow succeed in not making a total horlicks of the vaccination programme, and I don't know about you but I wouldn't bet the farm on that.
Right now it's still pitch dark, and there's at least one more total lockdown still to come. There will be a panic flap about a week after Christmas, that much is blindingly obvious. Though what's particularly galling is that it looks very much from the data that the third lockdown will be implemented despite the fact that the second lockdown was unnecessary: it started on November 5th and hospitalisations peaked on November 11th.
The lag is too short. The totality of cases, symptomatic and otherwise, must have been in decline before Johnson panicked and shut everything again. And that's exactly what will happen when the spike of Christmas-related illnesses roll in just after everybody's gone back to work in January. Watch.
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
He's the leader of the Opposition (apparently).
It is his job to tell the government that anything they are doing his party could do better. From Brexit, to Covid response, to schools, hospitals, you name it.
That, surely, has got to be written on the first pager of the Leader of the Opposition 1.01 manual?
I mean even Jeremy effing Corbyn realised this.
He can say that and still vote for something, if he thinks it appropritate in the circumstances. The approach you describe is that of a child, which would explain why Corbyn realised it.
Should Labour MPs not have voted for gay marriage because they were in opposition when it was proposed? Or did they vote for it whilst still being able to insist they could do a better job on equality issues?
Even an opposition doesn't just oppose all the time as there are plenty of things sides will actually agree about, or there might only be one viable option available, which might need to be taken without sacrificing the ability to condemn the government for getting in that position.
Absolutely wrong.
He is every day ceding ground and the initiative to the Cons.
In 12-18 or 36 months time:
SKS: The Cons got it very badly wrong over Covid and Brexit. Everyone: If it was so badly wrong why did you support it?
I didn't even say he should back it, just that the principle is perfectly sound without meaning he cannot effectively oppose or present a competent alternative which people would prefer. I find the 'oppositions oppose, duh' style of approach as if in itself that is all that is needed to be infantile in the extreme. Starmer might not pick his moments perfectly and will miss some opportunities, we shall see, but he at least knows to pick his moments, which is a good sign.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right...
Except that isn't what he would be saying. I used that phrase an example, but he wouldn't be saying that on this decision. If he did it he would be presenting it as a last resort to mitigate as best everyone the mess Boris has made, and the danger that arises from leaving it to the Tories who might reject it for something even worse.
What he’ll be saying is that he’s responsible enough to vote for a deal he severely dislikes, in the knowledge that the only other option, No Deal, is much worse. Unlike the irresponsible members opposite.
Here's an unexpected downside of homeworking. During a phone call today with a new colleague I have yet to meet in person I remarked about the old school photo of himself wearing school uniform he had posted as his LinkedIn profile pic. Turns out he took it himself last month in a brand new blue suit he had bought especially.
What line of business are you in again?
Barrister I believe, they struggle when they don't have a solicitor doing all the hard work for them.
Don't barristers wear striped trousers any more?
Like me, he's a solicitor, and his LinkedIn pic only showed him from the chest up.
Whats happening with Soldier F? Wasn't he supposed to be up for trial this year?
As I understood it, things have been put back because he's in his 70s, and so are a lot of the witnesses, so a normal trial isn't possible under the plague, so they plan to do it remotely, but it requires a lot of the evidence to be digitised.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
So what? It's about getting into power so you can enact the policies that you believe will benefit the country and that should include, as I said, "your" party's approach to "just about everything".
Just about everything leaves room for your love of the current govt's agricultural or any other particular policy. But you should be in vigorous disagreement with just about every other of their policies.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
So what? It's about getting into power so you can enact the policies that you believe will benefit the country and that should include, as I said, "your" party's approach to "just about everything".
Just about everything leaves room for your love of the current govt's agricultural or any other particular policy. But you should be in vigorous disagreement with just about every other of their policies.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
You're obviously out of practice about what it means to be an MP or a PPC.
Whats happening with Soldier F? Wasn't he supposed to be up for trial this year?
As I understood it, things have been put back because he's in his 70s, and so are a lot of the witnesses, so a normal trial isn't possible under the plague, so they plan to do it remotely, but it requires a lot of the evidence to be digitised.
Should begin the new year.
Thanks.
I did a search and and it came up with a Facebook thread from August in support of him, not a pretty sight. 'Only obeying orders' written without a smidgeon of self awareness.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
So what? It's about getting into power so you can enact the policies that you believe will benefit the country and that should include, as I said, "your" party's approach to "just about everything".
Just about everything leaves room for your love of the current govt's agricultural or any other particular policy. But you should be in vigorous disagreement with just about every other of their policies.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Quite so. And as should be obvious making silly criticisms which undermine the effective criticisms is one of my pet peeves.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
The government are just about to reseed covid with their inability to ensure students aren't negative before they disperse all over the country and the 5 day hall pass over Christmas.
Back to lockdown come February...
What are the alternative options?
All students must test negative before going home, just Christmas day lowering of restrictions, rule of 6 plus kids (and no granny / grandads over).
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
So illegal not to take a test on penalty of what? Being forcefully kept wherever they are? Arrested and detained? Kept away from their family?
That your idea of a society you want to live in?
Dear fucking god.
Same way as it will be a requirement to be vaccinated to get on a plane, unis can make it a requirement of continued registration that you take a test. No different to say pro athletes must take regular drugs and now covid tests to be eligible to compete.
It doesn't work like that, especially if the University is already "online only". Half their students are probably already hundreds of miles away.
Indeed. Eldest is Online only and living with my Mother who is 79 and shielding. Should they be forced to travel into Manchester, or wherever, to take a test as a condition of re-enrolling?
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
HYUFD (see Gallowgate) and Topping.
What do I think is always right?
It's implicit in your approach of opposing an opposition ever voting with the government, even if there was good reason for it, that one should always back a party taking a permanent stance against the other, and therefore that they must always be right. Perhaps that's not what you mean it to mean, but that's why it's such a childish approach.
Whats happening with Soldier F? Wasn't he supposed to be up for trial this year?
As I understood it, things have been put back because he's in his 70s, and so are a lot of the witnesses, so a normal trial isn't possible under the plague, so they plan to do it remotely, but it requires a lot of the evidence to be digitised.
Should begin the new year.
Thanks.
I did a search and and it came up with a Facebook thread from August in support of him, not a pretty sight. 'Only obeying orders' written without a smidgeon of self awareness.
This is the latest reputable news outlet article I can find, from June.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
HYUFD (see Gallowgate) and Topping.
What do I think is always right?
It's implicit in your approach of opposing an opposition ever voting with the government, even if there was good reason for it, that one should always back a party taking a permanent stance against the other, and therefore that they must always be right. Perhaps that's not what you mean it to mean, but that's why it's such a childish approach.
You do know how this whole political party thingy we have in the UK actually works don't you?
Clue: not by voting with the government if you are the opposition when opposing them might give you a crack at power.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
On the question of parties and policies, I was a member of a political party for 40 years. Did I agree with every nuance of every policy? No - I don't know anyone who did. I did all the activist thing and I was able to evangelise (cos that's what you do) on the broad brush and the main points but I didn't agree with it all ever.
Being a "loyalist" means you set aside whatever objections you have and you support the Party whatever and however - that's both intellectually consistent and inconsistent at the same time. The consistency comes from the broad principals and the general direction of travel but the inconsistency comes from saying one thing one decade and the complete opposite on the same issue a decade later.
My position on nuclear weapons and the independent British deterrent changed often in the 1980s - I went through phases of being a convinced unilateralist yet other times I was a strong supporter of the deterrent. I changed my position on EU membership as well. That's what you do in life - the arguments change, the environment changes and the position changes.
All parties have performed policy summersaults and u-turns which would make the average double-jointed performer proud and you can define conservatism, socialism, social democracy and liberalism now and those definitions would be very different from the 1980s or even the 1990s.
Sometimes parties are not defined by what they are as much as what they aren't. If I were cynical, I'd argue conservatives would make the best job of marxism, socialists would do a good job of running a capitalist market economy and liberals would make the best authoritarians. Why - because they would see the limitations and flaws and ambiguities and would be able to compensate and mitigate.
That's a debate for another day - the other point is politics is as much about strategy as it is tactics. Starmer, if he has any sense, is playing a multi-layered game. The short-term support for a Government at a time of crisis is tactically advantageous and allows room for strategic opposition down the line. It's inconsistent of course and for those in Labour who were inimically anti-Conservative it's difficult but down the line it will pay dividends because those looking for an alternative to Johnson will remember Starmer "doing what was right" at the time and will at least listen to his proposals for a Labour Government. They may still not vote for you but if you won't listen you won't get anywhere.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Maybe but I suspect Brexit (now joined by Covid-19) is intended to be Boris's legacy. It will not be tarnished by a footnote adding that SKS voted for it as well.
The mistake Labour are making on Brexit is that they are not laying into the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the negotiations and preparations (or lack thereof) with sufficient vigour. Instead they waste media bandwidth with trivia such as daft complaints about Rishi Sunak's wife's investments. Why on earth aren't they all over the media complaining that Boris has put businesses into an impossible position, leaving everything many months too late and landing us with a choice between a bad deal and an even worse No Deal? This and the Covid-19 failings should be their main attack points, but Brexit is the easier one for them. They have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to project themselves as better on business and the economy than the Conservatives.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
People mention it on here every other day.
We're all weirdos though.
I think you mean to say that we are well-informed.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
People mention it on here every other day.
We're all weirdos though.
I think you mean to say that we are well-informed.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
Comments
Ministers reject call for public inquiry into Pat Finucane murder
Announcement comes despite intense pressure for fresh investigation into 1989 death of Belfast solicitor
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/30/ministers-reject-call-for-public-inquiry-into-pat-finucane
Which, really, it wasn't.
Just bog-standard ageist invective from you.
I recall Cameron in 2010 before the GE saying that not everything Labour did was bad, and the good stuff should be kept. People know that sort of approach is true (whether he believed it or not), which is why fanatics don't persuade them that Tories are all babykillers or that Labour are all marxists. The public don't want too much nuance or equivocation, but they do want at least some appearance of nuance.
Hancock is asked by the BBC's Hugh Pym how effective mass testing of students can be if this is voluntary and not available to all students.
The health secretary says the government's goal is to make testing available to as many students as possible but this is "best done on a voluntary basis". However, he adds that he thinks the programme will "still make a difference".
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Back to lockdown come February...
Sure people will bend and break the rules and do boxing day, but 3 households at a time and 5 days is too lack as the "starting line" of where people will start to bend and break them.
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1333466831068270600
Of course all those things are. If you are a Lab supporter.
SKS has undermined his one consistent response to the govt by ceding them this. He will find it very difficult to recover. It is the flood gates.
I love the idea of people taking personal responsibility, but this crisis has shown us not enough are prepared to do it. They have to be told not to, and even then its all can i have a scotch egg or bottomless pasta bowls to enable me to booze all night.
https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1333452603754221568?s=19
I went to look what this Yeadon guy’s come out with now.
He’s published a stunning piece on how the pandemic actually ended in June, everything since then is false positives, we all reached herd immunity, especially in the worst hit areas, and every report of anything different is made up.
I expect @Foxy will be deeply relieved that it’s not only all over now, but can be backdated five months or so.
We’d better start prosecuting ICNARC as well.
Seriously, what is it with this guy? What’s in it for him?
That your idea of a society you want to live in?
Dear fucking god.
Half the people on my course are back home already, but the University has no idea who is at their term time address and who isn't. How do you expect them to make it mandatory to have a test before they "go home" if half of them are already at home?
For example, my home is my "term time address". Am I supposed to leave my home to go into Newcastle to have a test before I'm allowed uh, to go back home?
(It's particularly in my mind because I today completed our firm's mandatory Code of Ethics and Compliance training with all the associated "John sends a joke to the office..." examples.)
You are asking them to spit in a tube or put a cotton bud up their nose for a few seconds before they head home. Hardly North Korea type stuff.
They should actually be doing testing on leaving and arriving back.
Getting on a plane = something I want to do and not a fundamental human right.
Going home to see family = fundamental human right.
And as others have said, I'm not sure when you last rubbed shoulders with the student fraternity (or sorority) but all the ones I know are extremely keen not to give it to their parents/grandparents and will absolutely get tested.
But if they don't then they don't. And that's life.
So that is precisely what SKS is doing for them.
It seems to hit even highly qualified individuals. They start off down a path of enquiry. Instead of turning back when the facts are against the hypothesis, this make up more and more ludicrous and bizarre explanations for the facts being against them.
In the final stage I (and the other members of the High Council of the Illuminati) tell the lizard men in the people suits to order the Zeta Reticulans to kidnap them and imprison them in Youtube*.
*We tried ConHome, but the Zeta Reticulans had a very good union rep who tried to negotiate for hazard pay on the the grounds of mental health.
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
After three decades.
Obviously nothing to hide.
Just about everything leaves room for your love of the current govt's agricultural or any other particular policy. But you should be in vigorous disagreement with just about every other of their policies.
Right now it's still pitch dark, and there's at least one more total lockdown still to come. There will be a panic flap about a week after Christmas, that much is blindingly obvious. Though what's particularly galling is that it looks very much from the data that the third lockdown will be implemented despite the fact that the second lockdown was unnecessary: it started on November 5th and hospitalisations peaked on November 11th.
The lag is too short. The totality of cases, symptomatic and otherwise, must have been in decline before Johnson panicked and shut everything again. And that's exactly what will happen when the spike of Christmas-related illnesses roll in just after everybody's gone back to work in January. Watch.
FULHAM HAVE SCORED A PENALTY!
Unlike the irresponsible members opposite.
https://twitter.com/Iblogtoglasgow/status/1333467544808787976?s=20
Should begin the new year.
https://twitter.com/DaveSThompson/status/1333472392686034944
Or a LotO.
I did a search and and it came up with a Facebook thread from August in support of him, not a pretty sight.
'Only obeying orders' written without a smidgeon of self awareness.
Many a true word...
Should they be forced to travel into Manchester, or wherever, to take a test as a condition of re-enrolling?
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/bloody-sunday/bloody-sunday-soldier-f-hearings-put-back-to-september-39315538.html
Clue: not by voting with the government if you are the opposition when opposing them might give you a crack at power.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
Never ends well...
On the question of parties and policies, I was a member of a political party for 40 years. Did I agree with every nuance of every policy? No - I don't know anyone who did. I did all the activist thing and I was able to evangelise (cos that's what you do) on the broad brush and the main points but I didn't agree with it all ever.
Being a "loyalist" means you set aside whatever objections you have and you support the Party whatever and however - that's both intellectually consistent and inconsistent at the same time. The consistency comes from the broad principals and the general direction of travel but the inconsistency comes from saying one thing one decade and the complete opposite on the same issue a decade later.
My position on nuclear weapons and the independent British deterrent changed often in the 1980s - I went through phases of being a convinced unilateralist yet other times I was a strong supporter of the deterrent. I changed my position on EU membership as well. That's what you do in life - the arguments change, the environment changes and the position changes.
All parties have performed policy summersaults and u-turns which would make the average double-jointed performer proud and you can define conservatism, socialism, social democracy and liberalism now and those definitions would be very different from the 1980s or even the 1990s.
Sometimes parties are not defined by what they are as much as what they aren't. If I were cynical, I'd argue conservatives would make the best job of marxism, socialists would do a good job of running a capitalist market economy and liberals would make the best authoritarians. Why - because they would see the limitations and flaws and ambiguities and would be able to compensate and mitigate.
That's a debate for another day - the other point is politics is as much about strategy as it is tactics. Starmer, if he has any sense, is playing a multi-layered game. The short-term support for a Government at a time of crisis is tactically advantageous and allows room for strategic opposition down the line. It's inconsistent of course and for those in Labour who were inimically anti-Conservative it's difficult but down the line it will pay dividends because those looking for an alternative to Johnson will remember Starmer "doing what was right" at the time and will at least listen to his proposals for a Labour Government. They may still not vote for you but if you won't listen you won't get anywhere.